Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 82 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 82 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3057-H3092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2017

The Committee resumed its sitting.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The Clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)(increased by $10,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, America's navigation infrastructure is crumbling. Most
of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway System were built in the 1920s and 1930s, and have far
outlived their life expectancy. Unfortunately, we have not kept up with
the maintenance and upgrades necessary to ensure that they can
transport 21st century cargo that fuels and feeds the world.
Sixty percent of the grain exported from the United States goes
through these locks and dams before hitting the global marketplace. But
delays at navigation locks continue to get worse, lasting as long as 12
hours at a given time. And while a 2003 study by the Illinois Farm
Bureau estimated these delays to cost midwestern farmers $500 an hour,
one can only assume how much more these delays cost today.
In the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Congress authorized
the construction of seven new 1,200-foot locks along the Upper
Mississippi River and the Illinois Waterway System. This bill also
authorized the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program, or
NESP, an important dual-purposed program that allows the Corps of
Engineers to address both navigation and ecosystem restoration in an
integrated approach.
It is supported widely by industry as well as conservation groups. In
addition, the Governors of five States, from both political parties--
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri--and more than 50
bipartisan Members of the House and Senate have expressed support
advancing NESP.
Unfortunately, the administration has taken few steps to implement
NESP, and, once again, did not request any funding to continue pre-
construction engineering and design activities for authorized lock
projects on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System.
If these pre-construction efforts are delayed further, we risk further
delays of these projects actually getting off the ground and moving
forward at such time as the moneys for them are available.
With this amendment, we tell the Corps that enough is enough. It is
time to stop delaying the necessary work. We must ensure these
construction projects are ready to go on day one.
I also want to thank my colleague, Darin LaHood, who was going to
come speak on this amendment, but I don't see him here. It started a
little sooner, Mr. Chairman, than what we envisioned. But Mr. LaHood, I
know, would like to reiterate some of the comments I made. And he
represents two of these locks that are included in this study.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am going to try and
stall until my colleague gets here.
I do want to say this amendment, this project, has wide bipartisan
support. This is an opportunity for us to look at the global
marketplace and the products that go up and down the Mississippi River
and the Illinois Waterway System. This is how we feed the world.
We have some of the most fertile and expensive farmland in Illinois,
Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and so many of these products
that use these systems are the ones that are exporting into the global
marketplace and also to Third World countries to feed those who need
food the most.
As a matter of fact, just a few weeks ago, my colleague, Mr. LaHood,
and I toured some outdated facilities.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I am happy to hear the gentleman's deep interest in that
corridor of Illinois and Mississippi, and I would look forward to the
gentleman's assistance on trying to prevent the Asian carp from moving
further north in those channels and into the entire Great Lakes system,
destroying our natural fish population.
So I just wanted to put that on the record, and I thank the gentleman
so much for showing an interest in both the infrastructure and the
environmental restoration in those corridors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I would like to
thank the gentlewoman, too. This is an opportunity to address both of
those issues.
Obviously, representing part of the Mississippi River, like I do, we
have seen the Asian carp problem firsthand. As a matter of fact, a
plant opened in my district not too long ago to process Asian carp to
be able to get fish oil and fishmeal that is used for pet food and
other commodities. Unfortunately, they didn't anticipate the smell.
So you can't really build a fish processing plant around homes. And I
think they figured that out. But we need ingenuous ideas and
opportunities like that to be able to address that Asian carp problem,
because it is an invasive species and we need to do everything we can
in a bipartisan way to work together to put a stop to it entering the
Great Lakes or any other waterway.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I learned that, in the Peoria region, all
the natural fish have disappeared now as a result of the invasion of
the Asian carp there.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I wouldn't say all
the natural fish, but I know that the Asian carp infestation has grown
substantially more than what was envisioned when they were brought in.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

[[Page H3058]]

The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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); $1,945,580,000, 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 10409303; 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: Provided, That the Secretary may initiate up to, but not
more than, four new construction starts during fiscal year
2017: Provided further, That the new construction starts will
consist of three projects where the majority of the benefits
are derived from navigation transportation savings or from
flood and storm damage reduction and one project where the
majority of the benefits are derived from environmental
restoration: Provided further, That for new construction
projects, project cost sharing agreements shall be executed
as soon as practicable but no later than August 31, 2017:
Provided further, That no allocation for a new start shall be
considered final and no work allowance shall be made until
the Secretary provides to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress an out-year funding scenario
demonstrating the affordability of the selected new starts
and the impacts on other projects: Provided further, That the
Secretary may not deviate from the new starts proposed in the
work plan, once the plan has been submitted to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Clawson of Florida

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

Page 4, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 46, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
I especially have full appreciation and admiration and respect for the
chairman. I know he is going to go against me and this is going to get
voted down, but as both a leader and the chairman, I have full
admiration for what he does for our country, and he is an example to
people like me, by the way.
My amendment would move $50 million from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve account into the Army Corps' construction account, which
finances our Nation's water infrastructure projects.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, currently funded at $257
million, has increased by millions of dollars in each omnibus. This
funding is currently $68 million higher than it was back in the 2014
omnibus.
There is a management/cost question here because, at the same time
the costs have been going up at a significant level, the amount of oil
a barrel stored has stayed flat or gone down.
The American taxpayer is paying more and more every year, in a low
inflation environment, mind you, for the same amount or less oil. I
just think we ought to put the pressure on people to manage within
their cost structure as opposed to asking the taxpayer to pay the
increase.
Moreover, I want the Army Corps' construction account to increase by
$50 million because in South Florida we are suffering a year of
ecological and economic disaster. It is an El Nino year, and the rains
have raised the levels of stagnant water in Lake Okeechobee beyond the
capacity of the Herbert Hoover Dike.
Consequently, unwanted fresh waters flow east and west down the St.
Lucie and Caloosahatchee Rivers, polluting the Gulf of Mexico.
Countless fish and wildlife pay a price with their lives, and our
fishermen and tourism industry pay a major economic price as well,
while the cost structure of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account
goes up.
As summer approaches, Lake Okeechobee water levels are, again, rising
dangerously and we are about to have another ecological disaster. It is
on our doorstep, and it is not right. My people can hardly bear it.
So I say let's do the right thing and move $50 million more into the
Army Corps' construction account for projects that will help my
district and other districts around the country with similar projects.
To quote the conscience of our Congress, John Lewis, I think he would
say: let's make this place a little cleaner, let's make our environment
a little greener, and maybe our country a little kinder. Less money for
SG&A costs, more money for fresh water and for our environment and for
our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that I appreciate the
gentleman's kind words, and I am sympathetic to my colleague's interest
in funding the construction account, including the flood and storm
damage reduction projects such as the Herbert Hoover Dike.
Unfortunately, because we no longer do earmarks, as Congress used to
do, moving $50 million into an account doesn't guarantee that project
would necessarily be done by the Army Corps of Engineers. It just
increases the total amount in that account. In fact, the underlying
bill increases the construction funding by $856 million, or almost 80
percent above the budget request of the administration.

{time} 1815

For flood and storm damage reduction activity specifically, the bill
more than doubles the budget request. This includes a total of $392
million, for which the Herbert Hoover Dike could compete for additional
funding. Since the dike is a DSC1 dam safety project, I am sure it will
compete well for the work plan funds if it is able to use additional
funding in fiscal year 2017.
However, we must balance all the needs, and that means I cannot
support a reduction in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account. The
Strategic Petroleum Reserve stores petroleum to protect the Nation from
adverse economic impacts due to petroleum supply interruptions.
The funding in this bill is necessary for the operation and
maintenance of the Reserve as well as to address the backlog of
deferred maintenance at the Reserve. We must adequately fund these
activities to maintain our energy security.
For example, it does us no good to have this petroleum if we can't
access it in an emergency. For those reasons, even though I am
sympathetic to what the gentleman is trying to do, I urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. As with the chairman of the subcommittee, I rise in
reluctant opposition to this amendment. I like its intent, but not the
means by which the able gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson) gets to
his bottom line.
I think our major objection on this side is cutting the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. While I do support the Corps' construction account--
and, just for the Record, the account that we have proposed for
construction is $855 million over the 2017 budget request and $83.3
million over what is being expended this time.
But we have a $60 billion backlog, $60 billion for what we need to do
in the Corps throughout this country. So we have a problem there; so, I
would therefore oppose the amendment and recommend a ``no'' vote.
But maybe, in working with the gentleman, we can find ways in future
years to increase the overall account again. But I truly appreciate his
leadership and his efforts on this important issue.

[[Page H3059]]

I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Maybe at some
point in time this Congress will get back to the point where Members of
Congress can actually direct what activities are being done and
individual projects in their districts because nobody knows their
district better than the Members of Congress do.
When we had earmarks in the past, admittedly, we went too far, did
some frivolous things, all that kind of stuff, and I understand why we
instituted an earmark ban. But sometimes we go too far in the other
direction. That pendulum sometimes swings too far in the other
direction.
Members of Congress ought to have a say in what is done in their
districts. At this time that is hard to do, but I appreciate what the
gentleman is trying to do.
Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. With all humility, I appreciate the increase
in the projects and understand that you all are doing a great job.
You all have to understand that this is a disaster and everybody gets
disaster funding in our country but my district and my State.
So when there is a hurricane somewhere else, the President says it is
emergency funding and everybody gets their money. But when it is an El
Nino year and all that dirty water comes down that river and my
district gets wiped out by it, the President doesn't do anything. We
don't do anything.
It is about to happen again in August. You all have to understand,
for my constituents, that lake is up high again and it is rainy season.
We are going to say, no, my bill is not going to get heard on the floor
of the House, and my district is going to be underwater with dirty
water. There is going to be fish piled up on the beach, and we are
going to be a Congress that hasn't done anything about it.
So I hear you all and understand and agree with it and appreciate it.
But we have to have a bias for action, in my view. So I am just going
for more.
I hope you all forgive me for wanting a recorded vote, but you all
have to understand my folks are suffering right now. I hope Members
understand that. This is a big deal to us.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rice of South Carolina

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

Page 4, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,241,850)''.
Page 50, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,241,850)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, 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. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by
thanking Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work
on this important legislation.
My amendment transfers $2.2 million from the Department of Energy,
Departmental Administration account, to the Army Corps of Engineers'
construction account.
The intent of this amendment is for additional construction funds to
be used for the Army Corps' shore protection mission.
Shore protection projects are critical safeguards for life and
property in coastal districts like mine, protecting millions of lives
and billions of dollars of property.
These projects protect against storm surge, erosion, and flooding,
which are all too common. Not only are our beaches an important safety
buffer, but they are also economic drivers.
The State of South Carolina knows this well after suffering the
devastating flood event associated with Hurricane Joaquin last October.
As a result of this major disaster, the authorized Myrtle Beach shore
protection project suffered damages of approximately 700,000 cubic
yards of sand and $17 million. My amendment would protect projects
across the country like the Myrtle Beach project.
I want to thank the chairman for working with me in the wake of the
disaster on pertinent flood and storm damage accounts in this year's
funding bill.
I also want to thank the Army Corps for working with project sponsors
for inclusion in this year's work plan.
Two of the reaches of the project fit Public Law 84-99 emergency
criteria, resulting in a Corps recommendation of action. The Corps,
while they recommended action, did not have available resources to
address both reaches this year, imposing a safety and property
vulnerability in our area.
For that reason, I think it appropriate to increase the Corps'
construction account to allow significant projects like the one in
north Myrtle Beach, which lost 241,850 cubic yards of sand in October,
to compete for funding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

mississippi river and tributaries

For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects
and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley
below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law,
$345,000,000, 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.

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, $3,157,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary
to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and
maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for
inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available from the
special account for the Corps of Engineers established by the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived
from that account for resource protection, research,
interpretation, and maintenance activities related to
resource protection in the areas at which outdoor recreation
is available; and of which such sums as become available from
fees collected under section 217 of Public Law 104-303 shall
be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the
dredged material disposal facilities for which such fees have
been collected: Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount
of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or
activities funded under this heading shall not be allocated
to a field operating activity prior to the beginning of the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for
use by the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency
activities as the Chief of Engineers determines to be
necessary and appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers
shall allocate during the fourth quarter any remaining funds
which have not been used for emergency activities
proportionally in accordance with the amounts provided for
the programs, projects, or activities.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Graham

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

Page 6, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 8, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
b y $3,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page H3060]]

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint River system is a
critically important asset to the Southeastern United States' ecology,
economy, and heritage.
Unfortunately, it has also become a point of intense political
friction and lengthy, ongoing, and extremely costly litigation. I
strongly believe that, if we could get away from the politics and the
lawsuits, we would have a much better chance of resolving this issue in
a way that brings us together rather than divides us.
That is why I am optimistic about the recent work of the
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Stakeholders, a diverse group of
private citizens who live and work in the ACF Basin. They represent the
whole spectrum of stakeholders, public and private, from Florida,
Georgia, and Alabama.
They have been able to unite around the common mission of changing
the management of the ACF Basin to create a healthier economy and
environment, which will benefit everyone, and they have made a number
of recommendations to the Corps of Engineers to meet their goal of a
sustainable ACF Basin.
The ACF Stakeholder group has identified significant gaps in
fundamental, scientific, and technical knowledge needed to best manage
this natural resource. One of those recommendations is that the Corps
conduct more basic scientific research on the entire river basin and
bay.
My amendment is intended to provide a small amount of money to the
Corps so that they can simply do more of that kind of research in the
ACF.
In short, there is a whole lot that we still don't know about how
water moves throughout the ACF Basin, and I believe it is simply common
sense that, if we have better information about this unique natural
resource, we, in turn, can manage it better for today and generations
to come.
Let's follow the good example of the ACF Stakeholders and work
together to get this done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose this amendment because
it does not require the Corps to fund anything in particular.
We have had other similar amendments already tonight, and I would
just like to remind my colleagues that these amendments--simply
increasing the funding level of a particular account, they do not
direct that funding to a particular activity.
If they did fund specific projects, those would be congressional
earmarks that are no longer allowed. As we talked about on the last
amendment, frankly, that is something I would like to change myself,
and I know that the ranking member would, also.
But since this amendment only changes the overall account level, I
will not oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chair and the
ranking member for working with me on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Graham).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. 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, 2018.

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, $103,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

flood control and coastal emergencies

For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and
other natural disasters and support emergency operations,
repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters
as authorized by law, $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, 2018, 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, 2018:
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 $5,400,000 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 in this Act shall be used for
an open lake placement alternative for 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 section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341); Provided further, That until an
open lake placement alternative for dredged material is
approved under a State water quality certification, the Corps
of Engineers shall continue upland placement of such dredged
material consistent with the requirements of section 101 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).
Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used for any acquisition that is not consistent with
48 CFR 225.7007.

[[Page H3061]]

Sec. 106. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out any water supply reallocation study
under the Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Kentucky, project
authorized under the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636, ch.
595).
Sec. 107. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, may accept from the Trinity River
Authority of Texas, if received by September 30, 2016,
$31,233,401 as payment in full for amounts owed to the United
States, including any accrued interest, for the approximately
61,747.1 acre-feet of water supply storage space in Joe Pool
Lake, Texas (previously known as Lakeview Lake) for which
payment has not commenced under Article 5.a. (relating to
project investment costs) of contract number DACW63-76-C-0106
as of the date of enactment of this section.
Sec. 108. 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.).

{time} 1830

Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer

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

Page 13, beginning on line 3, strike section 108.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple: it strikes
section 108 of this bill. Section 108 would prevent the Army Corps of
Engineers from updating the definitions of the terms ``fill material''
or ``discharge of fill material.''
These definitions underlie section 404 of the Clean Water Act which
governs dredge and fill permitting, one of the most important
components of the act.
To freeze those definition in time, as section 108 does, ties the
hands of the implementing agencies, despite evolving scientific
understanding and current regulatory insights. Current and future
administrations must have discretion to implement key terms and clarify
them when needed.
The alternative puts our Nation's waters at risk.
My amendment would remove this anti-Clean Water Act rider.
When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, the section 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.
But under a 2002 rule change, the definition of ``fill material'' was
broadened to include ``rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction
debris, wood chips, 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 had never intended.
It was not congressional intent to allow mining refuse and similar
material--some of it hazardous--to qualify 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. 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 existing divisions 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, section 108, is a preemptive strike
against protecting our drinking water. Since there is no time limit on
this provision, it would not only block the current administration but
any future administration from considering changes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and strike
section 108 from this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. 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 was finalized by the Bush
administration. That 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 and would oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment to strike
section 108, and I thank Congressman Beyer of Virginia for offering it.
The provision the gentleman seeks to strike is one of three 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 urge my colleagues to support the Beyer amendment. Freshwater is a
precious resource, one which should be protected in the best scientific
manner possible.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia for doing something really
important for the country through this amendment to clean up this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 109. Notwithstanding section 404(f)(2) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)(2)), 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. 110. 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.),

[[Page H3062]]

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, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Congressman Matt Cartwright, and I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 13, beginning on line 20, strike section 110.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, much like the previous discussion, our
amendment would simply strike section 110.
As it stands, section 110 would prevent the implementation of the
Clean Water Rule. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army
Corps of Engineers adopted the Clean Water Rule following a lengthy and
inclusive public rulemaking process.
It restores the Clean Water Act protections to streams, wetlands, and
other important waters of the United States.
Without the Clean Water Rule, the streams that provide drinking water
systems serving one in three Americans will remain at risk.
Almost everyone agreed that clarity was needed in light of the
Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 that interpreted the regulatory
scope of the Clean Water Act more narrowly than the agencies and lower
courts. Those cases created uncertainty about the scope of waters
protected under the Clean Water Act.
Calls for EPA to issue a rule even came from such organizations as
the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the Western Business Roundtable, and the National
Association of Manufacturers.
Prohibiting the EPA from implementing this rule, as section 110 would
direct, would perpetrate this confusion. There are countless cases to
reiterate this point.
For example, the EPA acknowledged enforcement difficulties in a case
in which storm water from construction sites carried oil, 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 flow only 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. So we need to end the confusion.
But, unfortunately, we are left with the Clean Water Rule not
currently being enforced because of a Federal Court ruling that blocked
its implementation while it is being litigated.
The Corps and the EPA will continue to make Clean Water Act
jurisdictional determinations based on the 2010 guidelines, as they did
before the promulgation of the 2015 rule, doing the best they can with
the ambiguity that they are forced to work with. So this confusion will
continue.
It needs to be said that opponents of the Clean Water Rule have it
wrong. The rule respects agriculture and the law by maintaining all of
the existing exemptions for agricultural discharges and waters. 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.
I want to reiterate. The administration has created a strong,
commonsense rule to make clean water a priority by protecting the
sources that feed the drinking water for more than 117 million
Americans, including 2.3 million Virginians. If we continue to block
the rule to protect clean water, at least 57 percent of Virginia's
streams and 20 million acres of wetlands nationwide will continue to be
at risk.
American businesses need to know when the Federal Government has
authority and when it doesn't. Without updated guidance and the clarity
it provides, businesses will often not know when they need Army Corps
of Engineers' permits. This uncertainty could result in civil and
criminal liability and will certainly cost them extra money.
Overall, the Clean Water Act riders are part of an effort to return
us to a time when we had no uniform, national, minimum clean water
standards, and States had conflicting policies or no policies to
protect the public. That was a time when rivers were so polluted they
caught fire and when responsible downstream States suffered the
consequences of lax or weak upstream State policies.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose these Clean Water Act
riders and to support my amendment to strike section 110.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. We have
debated this issue for many years now.
The fact is, the gentleman is right in one regard in that the Clean
Water Act, in trying to define what waters of the United States by
navigable waters, is hard. Navigable to what?
Consequently, every organization that I know of supports a new rule
that brings certainty and clarity to it. That is what the Supreme Court
said on two different occasions: that the Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency had gone too far, and that Federal
jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act was not as broad as they had
claimed, and that we needed certainty and clarity in this rule. So the
EPA took that and said: okay, I know what will give certainty; we will
just regulate everything.
That is pretty much what they have done with this rule. Everybody who
proposes this as a really good deal is under the assumption that the
waters were not regulated before if they didn't fall under the Clean
Water Act. The reality is that the EPA didn't regulate them, but the
States regulated them, and the States did a darn good job of it in most
cases.

We do need some clarity. But as cases have said, as the Supreme Court
has said, the EPA has gone too far. Deciding how water should be used
is the responsibility of State and local officials who are more
familiar with the people and the local issues.
Under the WOTUS rule, the Federal reach of jurisdiction would be so
broad that it could significantly restrict landowners' ability to make
decisions about their property and a local government's right to plan
for its own development. While there may be a desire for clarity on the
issue of the Federal jurisdiction, providing clarity does not trump the
need to stay within the limits of the law.
Bringing certainty to this, you know, that is a nice thing to say. A
hanging brings certainty, but I am not sure it is the result you want,
which is what we have got here.
The WOTUS rule would expand Federal jurisdiction far beyond what was
ever intended by the Clean Water Act.
The provision in the Energy and Water Development bill does not
weaken the Clean Water Act; it stops the administration from expanding
Federal jurisdiction. For that purpose, I strongly urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of
the subcommittee.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding and support his amendment strongly. It strikes a harmful
provision that prevents the Corps from addressing deficiencies in
regulatory uncertainties related to Clean Water Act regulations.
Without this amendment, the bill would contribute to delays,
uncertainty, and increased costs both for the government, for
companies, and individuals who discharge into wetlands, streams, lakes,
and other waters.
It will increase delays in the implementation of important public
works projects and lead to protracted litigation on the disparity
between existing

[[Page H3063]]

Federal regulations and two Supreme Court decisions.
The provision that this amendment strikes does not apply to just this
year. It applies to any subsequent Energy and Water Development Act
precluding potential changes that may be necessary to protect public
health and the environment, and ensuring that uncertainty continues
indefinitely.
I believe the amendment allows the Corps the needed flexibility to
deal with the confusion that has surrounded Clean Water Act
jurisdiction in the wake of the two Supreme Court decisions, and we
should be allowing the Corps to take actions that address the Supreme
Court's ruling, bringing clarity and certainty to the regulatory
process, not prolonging the confusion.

{time} 1845

If this amendment is not passed, it could mean an estimated one-fifth
of wetlands and 2 million miles of small streams will not be protected.
I urge my colleagues to support the Beyer amendment. Freshwater is a
precious resource, one which should be protected in the best scientific
manner possible. We owe it to future generations.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, they are absolutely right. This would
block the implementation of this rule in the future. That is what we
are trying to do. We are saying this rule is no good, start again. It
doesn't mean that these streams would be in danger or anything else.
We are saying to the Army Corps and to the EPA, go back and start
again, because they were wrong in this rule and they far overreached
their authority of the Clean Water Act. I think that is what a court is
going to decide, and this probably won't be necessary because a court
is probably going to throw this out.
The reality is we all want clean water. If this amendment is not
adopted and our language goes into effect, it doesn't mean that these
wetlands and these streams are going to be unregulated. They will be
regulated, as they were before, by the State governments. We have a
Federal system. We have Federal law. We have State laws. The State laws
do some things. They have regulated water within their States for years
and have done a pretty good job of it.
Is the Clean Water Act necessary? You bet it is. You are right. The
Cuyahoga River hasn't started a fire for a long time because of the
cleanup that has been done, but that doesn't mean that they need to
regulate every little mud puddle and stream in the State of Idaho.
I strongly oppose this amendment, as I have in years gone by. And I
would say it again: This is telling the EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers to start over again. Follow the intent of the Clean Water Act
and the intent of Congress when it was passed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 111. 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.

Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

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

Page 14, strike lines 7 through 19.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply strikes a controversial provision
that is irrelevant to the underlying bill.
Section 111 of the bill explicitly prohibits the Secretary of the
Army from preventing someone from bringing a loaded weapon onto Federal
Army Corps property. This divisive gun policy is nothing more than
another attempt by the majority, unfortunately, to promote the
interests of the gun lobby. It chips away at the safety and well-being
of the Army Corps personnel and surrounding communities.
Not only is this gun rider widely considered bad policy, the Energy
and Water Appropriations bill is an inappropriate mechanism for
debating the pros and cons of gun possession on Federal lands, and is
inconsistent with the majority's promotion of regular order.
Last week, the House debated the National Defense Authorization Act,
which is certainly a more appropriate legislative vehicle for a
discussion about guns. I offered an amendment to that bill to improve
smart gun technology, and the majority didn't even allow it to be
debated on the floor. In fact, not a single gun bill has been
considered by the House in the 114th Congress. If the majority is eager
to debate the merits of carrying loaded weapons on Federal properties,
I am certain that many of us on this side of the aisle would be more
than willing to participate in that debate.
By virtue of attaching this policy rider to an appropriations bill,
and by virtue of the majority dismissing requests to debate gun
research and smart gun technology, it seems that the majority would
rather force a contentious issue through Congress with no debate at
all. This approach is at odds with the purpose for which we are all
here: to debate issues important to our constituents and this country
and, by virtue of that debate, advance policies to improve our country.
Mr. Chairman, this policy rider is misplaced and misguided.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to understand that we are doing
this without any debate when the gentleman is, in fact, debating. That
is what we are doing. That is what we did in committee. That is what we
did in subcommittee. That is how this process works.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. The current regulation
prohibits citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights
guaranteed in the Constitution on Corps land. Many people don't realize
it, but the Army Corps of Engineers is the largest Federal provider of
outdoor recreation in the country.
The language in this bill would simply align Corps policy with the
policy for national parks and national wildlife refuges established by
Congress in 2009. We heard the same debate when we said, no, people
ought to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights in national
parks. They shouldn't have to disassemble their guns, put them in their
trunk, and everything else when they go through national parks. We
instituted that policy, and today you can exercise your Second
Amendment rights in national parks. It hasn't been a problem. The same
thing with national wildlife refuges.
Therefore, I oppose this amendment. Let's make sure that every
American has the right to exercise their Second Amendment rights
guaranteed in the Constitution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, while I respect that perspective, I
appreciate the gentleman from Idaho's perspective, and hope that we can
work together in the future to make sure that public safety is
protected on Army Corps of Engineers property.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear today that this is not a day for a
breakthrough on gun debate, in my view.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H3064]]

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, $11,000,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $1,300,000 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, $1,350,000 shall be available until September 30,
2018, for expenses necessary in carrying out related
responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided
further, That for fiscal year 2017, 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, $982,972,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $22,000 shall be available for transfer to
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $5,551,000 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.

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, $55,606,000, 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,
$36,000,000, 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, 2018,
$59,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.

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, where 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. Section 205(2) of division D of Public Law 114-
113 is amended by striking ``2016'' and inserting ``2017''.

scientifically supported implementation of omr flow requirements

Sec. 204. (a) To maximize water supplies for the Central
Valley Project and the State Water Project, in implementing
the provisions of the smelt biological opinion or salmonid
biological opinion, or any successor biological opinions or
court orders, pertaining to management of reverse flow in the
Old and Middle Rivers, the Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) consider the relevant provisions of the applicable
biological opinions or any successor biological opinions;
(2) manage export pumping rates to achieve a reverse OMR
flow rate of -5,000 cubic feet per second unless existing
information or that developed by the Secretary of the
Interior under paragraphs (3) and (4) leads the Secretary to
reasonably conclude, using the best scientific and commercial
data available, that a less negative OMR flow rate is
necessary to avoid a significant negative impact on the long-
term survival of the species covered by the smelt biological
opinion or salmonid biological opinion. If the best
scientific and commercial data available to the Secretary
indicates that a reverse OMR flow rate more negative than -
5,000 cubic feet per second can be established without an
imminent negative impact on the long-term survival of the
species covered by the smelt biological opinion or salmonid
biological opinion, the Secretary shall manage export pumping
rates to achieve that more negative OMR flow rate;
(3) document, in writing, any significant facts about real-
time conditions relevant to the determinations of OMR reverse
flow rates, including--
(A) whether targeted real-time fish monitoring pursuant to
this section, including monitoring in the vicinity of Station
902, indicates that a significant negative impact on the
long-term survival of species covered by

[[Page H3065]]

the smelt biological opinion or salmonid biological opinion
is imminent; and
(B) whether near-term forecasts with available models show
under prevailing conditions that OMR flow of -5,000 cubic
feet per second or higher will cause a significant negative
impact on the long-term survival of species covered by the
smelt biological opinion or salmonid biological opinion;
(4) show, in writing, that any determination to manage OMR
reverse flow at rates less negative than -5,000 cubic feet
per second is necessary to avoid a significant negative
impact on the long-term survival of species covered by the
smelt biological opinion or salmonid biological opinion, and
provide, in writing, an explanation of the data examined and
the connection between those data and the choice made, after
considering--
(A) the distribution of Delta smelt throughout the Delta;
(B) the potential effects of documented, quantified
entrainment on subsequent Delta smelt abundance;
(C) the water temperature;
(D) other significant factors relevant to the
determination; and
(E) whether any alternative measures could have a
substantially lesser water supply impact; and
(5) for any subsequent smelt biological opinion or salmonid
biological opinion, make the showing required in paragraph
(4) for any determination to manage OMR reverse flow at rates
less negative than the most negative limit in the biological
opinion if the most negative limit in the biological opinion
is more negative than -5,000 cubic feet per second.
(b) No Reinitiation of Consultation.--In implementing or at
the conclusion of actions under subsection (a), the Secretary
of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce shall not
reinitiate consultation on those adjusted operations unless
there is a significant negative impact on the long-term
survival of the species covered by the smelt biological
opinion or salmonid biological opinion. Any action taken
under subsection (a) that does not create a significant
negative impact on the long-term survival to species covered
by the smelt biological opinion or salmonid biological
opinion will not alter application of the take permitted by
the incidental take statement in the biological opinion under
section 7(o)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(c) Calculation of Reverse Flow in Omr.--Within 90 days of
the enactment of this title, the Secretary of the Interior is
directed, in consultation with the California Department of
Water Resources to revise the method used to calculate
reverse flow in Old and Middle Rivers, for implementation of
the reasonable and prudent alternatives in the smelt
biological opinion and the salmonid biological opinion, and
any succeeding biological opinions, for the purpose of
increasing Central Valley Project and State Water Project
water supplies. The method of calculating reverse flow in Old
and Middle Rivers shall be reevaluated not less than every
five years thereafter to achieve maximum export pumping rates
within limits established by the smelt biological opinion,
the salmonid biological opinion, and any succeeding
biological opinions.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that
amends a portion of the bill not yet read for amendment. I ask
unanimous consent to offer it at this point in the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Strike page 22, line 1, through page 42, line 16.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am submitting an amendment with Representatives Lieu
and Garamendi to strike provisions in the underlying legislation that
are taken from H.R. 2898.
This important appropriations bill contains policy provisions that
would further drain freshwater from the California delta with
overpumping. These provisions would damage the delta's ecosystem and
would cause serious economic harm to the communities we serve.
These provisions would undermine 40 years of progress in developing a
true stewardship over the land and resources. Since these laws, which
have helped make this progress possible, there have been countless
attempts to scale back or undo them.
The provisions in the bill will weaken the Endangered Species Act and
set a precedent of putting aside environmental protections. It
misstates California water law and perpetuates a water war in the West
at a time when we are working to bridge those divides. Families,
farmers, and small businesses north and south of the California delta
need water. This is a State issue, not a regional one.
Meanwhile, the results for farmers, families, businesses in the
delta, as well as fishermen will be devastating. Fish will vanish and
saltwater will intrude, permanently damaging some of the most
productive farmland in the world.
Mr. Chairman, California water use seems to rely on an endless supply
of freshwater. Unfortunately, there is only a finite amount of
freshwater.
Historically, in limited water conditions, water has been taken from
one region to supply another region. The Owens Valley and the Colorado
River are perfect examples of what happens--one region benefits and
another region suffers. That is exactly what is going to happen here.
The delta region will suffer. Is that what we really want?
Mr. Chairman, California and Federal officials have been able to
increase exports from the California delta. This action has helped
maximize use of what little water exists in the State. A lack of water
is our biggest threat, not operational flexibility.
It is completely inappropriate for a policy of this magnitude to be
included in an annual must-pass appropriations bill. We should not be
using an appropriations bill to ram through misguided policies that
reward a few powerful stakeholders at the expense of others. This bill
should not be included in this year's Energy and Water Appropriations
bill. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, one of the most interesting things we
always hear is water is a finite resource and we shouldn't waste it.
It always blows my mind because this simple graph right here is a
very strong example of what happened from one year to the next. Right
here is what came into the delta in 2015, and right here is what
happened in 2016--the amount of water that came in and the amount of
water that was exported to the south of the delta--and this is the
amount of water going through the delta this year. So the amount of
water that went through the delta and out into the ocean and completely
wasted, right here in this graph, and this is how much we are able to
capture.
That is a huge difference and a huge waste of water. Communities in
my district have been suffering because of a lack of action in this
House. This is not a State issue. This is policy that was implemented
years ago; and as we watch and see the delta continue to go and
continue to decline and the species continue to disappear, doing this
has actually not helped the species, has done nothing.
There is language in this bill that actually helps protect the
species, the predator species. We have the ability in this bill to
start a program that could actually help eliminate the striped bass. We
have seen studies. As much as 60 to 90 percent of delta smelt are
consumed by striped bass.
Why don't we allow that language to move forward? There was a motion
today to strike some of that language, as well, in another bill as
there is in this one.
This is a problem. As communities continue to struggle, this is what
we end up with. I think this is the most important picture. This is in
my district. This is not in a Third World country. This is in the
United States of America. This is right here in California, and this is
something that is happening in these communities because of this water
being wasted.

{time} 1900

We are putting people out of work, and we now see shanty towns. These
shanty towns are not just regular folks--these are families. You see a
stroller here, and you see some children's toys.
Is this what we want to support?
Anybody who supports this amendment is supporting this in the United

[[Page H3066]]

States of America, and I can't imagine why we would want to do that.
Again, this is commonsense language that helps to address the problem
that we have. We try to bring some common sense to the protection of
the delta, and we look at it from all different angles. If Members want
to continue this debate elsewhere, I am happy to do it. We have passed
legislation. It sits in the Senate. The Senate hasn't acted. We are
going to keep pushing and looking for a way to bring this to the
forefront so we can offer a solution.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, welcome to California water wars,
Members of Congress. Here we are again, back to our water war.
We need to solve the problem of the delta, but you don't do it by
gutting the environmental protections of the delta. Have no doubt about
it. This is another water war in California that we do not need.
What we need is some wise legislation that actually can solve the
problem. Gutting the Endangered Species Act, overriding the biological
opinions, taking away the Clean Water Act, and simply turning the pumps
on is not a solution. It is, in fact, the death knell of the delta.
Along with Governor Brown's twin tunnels, it will destroy the delta. So
let's not go that way. Let's find the right solution in which science--
that is the realtime monitoring of what is happening in the delta--is
how we determine whether to ramp up or to reduce the pumping in the
delta. That is not in this bill.
Take a look at the opponents here. We have the two delta interests,
Mr. McNerney and I. We have the San Joaquin Valley interests. Gentlemen
and ladies, welcome to California water wars. This is not the way to
handle it--not in an appropriation, not in a bill that guts the
environmental protections and simply turns the pumps on.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, we hear about water being wasted in its
going out to the ocean, but that water is pushing saltwater away from
our farms and the delta. It is allowing salmon fish to go out to the
ocean. It is providing jobs all up and down the coast. I don't really
accept the word ``waste.''
I implore my colleagues from southern California: let's work
together. There are solutions out there. We can recycle; we can store
rainwater; we can become more efficient and find wastage and stop
evaporations. There are plenty of things we can do to produce new
water. These provisions in this bill produce no new water. It just
serves one portion of the State to benefit another.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chair, water wars. I have been at this for a while, too, as my
friend from northern California has. People are suffering right now for
no good reason.
According to independent studies, under the existing biological
opinions, over a million acre feet of water have been wasted because of
non-pumping. What I mean by ``wasted'' is not one fish--not one smelt,
not one salmon--would have been lost in the delta because of pumping;
but because of overcautiousness on the part of the Department of the
Interior and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we have let that
water go. Tell that to the people who live in that shanty town. Tell
that to the people who actually import produce from China to live on.
I know that people like to paint us as the party that doesn't care
about the Hispanic community. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of
people who have been put out of work in the Central Valley. This is
wrong.
I congratulate Mr. Valadao for the hard work and the passion that he
has put into this because he cares about the people he represents, and
we should care about them, too.
There is no good reason why we have let this happen. We have allowed
this to happen for a number of reasons, most of which don't make any
sense to most people who understand this stuff. We have a chance, I
think, to fix this and to pass Mr. Valadao's legislation. Let's move
on.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Mr. Chair, I just want to follow up on a few things.
We talked about water that goes out to the ocean as being wasted.
Again, the delta is becoming more salty every year. We have been
exporting 70 percent of the freshwater that comes to the delta. The
saltwater has been intruding. We need the freshwater to push out that
saltwater for the fishermen who live up and down the coast. I feel for
the farmers who are in the south part of the valley--it is devastating;
it is horrible--but we also see the same thing happening with fishermen
on the north coast.
Basically, we are doing the same thing that has been done
historically. At Owens Valley, we are going to take water from one part
of the State, and we are going to give it to another. We are going to
benefit one part, and we are going to hurt another. That is not the way
to do business.
We can find comprehensive solutions that include infrastructure
investments, recycling, WaterSMART projects. There are ways to create
new water. We don't have to keep grabbing water from one another to
grow fruits and vegetables or to have fishermen survive on the north
coast.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, all of us can get pretty excited about
water in California, and I see my colleagues from the San Joaquin
Valley and beyond who are lined up here to protest what has happened
over this last year.
There is no doubt that in this last year the rainy season didn't work
for anybody. We can find a solution if we base that solution on solid
science, if we base it on the realtime monitoring of where the fish
are. I know there is a monitoring provision in this bill. Also, this
particular bill, as written, would push aside the environmental
protections and simply allow the pumps to be turned on even with the
monitoring. What we really need to do is to base the delta operation on
the realtime monitoring of where the species are and then adjust the
pumps accordingly.

There is a solution. My colleague, Mr. McNerney, just talked in
detail about the necessity of building additional infrastructure for
water. We need Sites Reservoir in the northern part of the State. We
need to rebuild the San Luis Reservoir, and the Los Banos Grandes needs
to be built. We need to build the infrastructure, the recycling, and
all of the other things.
We do not need to take, as this bill does, the Endangered Species
Act, the Clean Water Act, and the biological opinions and push them out
of the way and just allow the pumps to turn on. That is not a solution.
That is a solution for the destruction of the largest estuary on the
west coast of the Western Hemisphere.
I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of my colleagues from the
San Joaquin Valley and from southern California. They are sincere about
the concern, and we share that concern. 300,000 acres of my rice farm
didn't get planted this last year because of the drought. We also know
the damage that a drought can do, but there is a way of solving this
problem. This is not the bill. This bill will set off a war. Obviously,
we are already at it here on the floor of the House.
Let's put this aside. Let's sit down, as we can do, and develop a
solution that keeps in place the environmental laws and allows the
flexibility that is present within those laws to be used to the maximum
extent and not push the laws and the biological opinions out of the way
to the detriment of the largest

[[Page H3067]]

estuary on the west coast of the Western Hemisphere. It is critical for
salmon and other species in the ocean as well as for the agriculture in
the delta and the 4 million or 5 million people who depend upon that
water from the delta.
I ask my colleagues to work with all of us, and I will take the chair
of the subcommittee up on his offer. I will take the gentleman up on
his offer and sit down with him, and we will work this out, but not in
this way, at this moment on this floor, with a bill that really does
gut the environmental laws and that guts the environmental species as
well as the Clean Water Act.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Reed). The gentlewoman from Ohio has 1 minute
remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McNerney), who has fought so very hard on this issue.
Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chair, I am basically appealing to my colleagues. There are
solutions out there. We can find a whole State solution to which all
stakeholders have input. Right now that is not what this is. This is
pitting one region against the other, and it is going to perpetuate
what has been called the California water war. We didn't need to go
there. There are solutions.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I am always amazed by the debates on this floor, and I
think they are healthy. I like to listen to what people say and what
people desire. Let me explain what I have heard as a desire to deal
with the water crisis in California.
People request that whatever we do, do not change the Endangered
Species Act. Could we work together on both sides? Could we make sure
we stay within the biological opinion?
For some of those people who are watching at home, they may not have
watched the last three terms of this Congress. This drought is not new.
But what is interesting is, if you just go back in this decade of the
snowpack in California--let's go back 5 years--we had 160 percent of
snowpack, which was an amazing year for California.
But do you know what was allocated from the State Water Project for
water?
Eighty percent out of 160 percent. The next year, we had only 55
percent. In 2015, we only had 8 percent of snowpack. This year was an
El Nino, so we got up to 87 percent. Yet, if you look at the numbers,
we have only pumped about the same amount of water as we did when we
had 8 percent.
My parents would always read me bedtime stories. The one I loved the
most was one in which they talked about a grasshopper and an ant. It
was interesting how one of them would save for that rainy day. In this
case, it would be putting the water away. It would be saving for that
next year because, as we go through these years, our snowpack is always
not the same.
If we are not pumping the water down, where is it going?
It is going to the ocean.
For the last three terms, we have tried to solve the water crisis,
and, every time, we have heard these same arguments; so every term we
did something different. A term ago, we got together with Republicans
and Democrats, and we worked with our Senate leaders on the other side;
but when it got time to make a final decision, I was told: no, no, we
couldn't do this because it didn't go through committee, and there
weren't enough people in the room.
So we said: All right. Well, we will go back to the drawing board.
This time we went through and we put Republicans and Democrats in the
room.
Do you know what is interesting?
It just so happens Republicans are in the majority and Democrats are
in the minority, but not in that room. There were more Democrats than
there were Republicans, and we stayed months in there talking. We came
to a lot of agreements. Maybe some people who were in the room won't
say that on the outside, but on the inside, they agreed to a lot of the
pieces of the legislation.
I will tell you that those pieces that we agreed to are in this bill.
Do you know why?
Because we listened. We don't change the Endangered Species Act. We
don't go beyond the biological opinion.
Are you concerned about fish?
We say in this piece of legislation to pump higher unless there is a
concern in the harming of the fish. You don't have to come back to
Congress to change the level of pumping. So those solutions I hear on
the floor are in the bill. I think it is about time that we stop making
false accusations and actually stand for what we need.

{time} 1915

Do you know what in these rooms I heard a lot about? Desalinization.
And I said I will help with that. Because the whole concept of
desalinization is we will spend a lot of money with a lot of energy to
take that ocean water and take the salt out of it and make it
freshwater.
Don't you think it would kind of be smart of us first to make sure
that our freshwater is not becoming saltwater first? That is all we are
asking here. We are saying let's live within the biological opinion.
We are protecting the Endangered Species Act, but we are doing
something different in California. We are planning for the future. We
are planning for those years that you won't have the big snowpack. We
are planning for the years that California continues to grow. We are
also planning for those people who work in the fields. We are planning
for the people who want to build the homes.
Central Valley may be a little different than everyplace else, but
those jobs are just as important as any job anywhere else in
California. So, yes, we have sat in the rooms. Yes, there were more on
the minority side than on the majority. Yes, we listened to you and we
took what we heard and put it into a bill.
Because the other thing I heard when we couldn't do this is that it
had to be regular order. That is why it could not be in the omnibus
bill even though that was an idea from my Senate colleague in the other
house.
So you know what? This is regular order on the floor of the House
with the ideas that we heard, and it is in the bill.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

temporary operational flexibility for first few storms of the water
year

Sec. 205. (a) In General.--Consistent with avoiding an
immediate significant negative impact on the long-term
survival upon listed fish species over and above the range of
impacts authorized under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
and other environmental protections under subsection (d), the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce shall
authorize the Central Valley Project and the California State
Water Project, combined, to operate at levels that result in
negative OMR flows at -7,500 cubic feet per second (based on
United States Geological Survey gauges on Old and Middle
Rivers) daily average as described in subsections (b) and (c)
to capture peak flows during storm events.
(b) Days of Temporary Operational Flexibility.--The
temporary operational flexibility described in subsection (a)
shall be authorized on days that the California Department of
Water Resources determines the net Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta outflow index is at, or above, 13,000 cubic feet
per second.
(c) Compliance With Endangered Species Act
Authorizations.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce may continue to
impose any requirements under the smelt biological opinion
and salmonid biological opinion during any period of
temporary operational flexibility as they determine are
reasonably necessary to avoid additional significant negative
impacts on the long-term survival of a listed fish species
over and

[[Page H3068]]

above the range of impacts authorized under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, provided that the requirements imposed
do not reduce water supplies available for the Central Valley
Project and the California State Water Project.
(d) Other Environmental Protections.--
(1) State law.--The actions of the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Commerce under this section
shall be consistent with applicable regulatory requirements
under State law. The foregoing does not constitute a waiver
of sovereign immunity.
(2) First sediment flush.--During the first flush of
sediment out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in
each water year, and provided that such determination is
based upon objective evidence, OMR flow may be managed at
rates less negative than -5,000 cubic feet per second for a
minimum duration to avoid movement of adult Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus) to areas in the southern
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta that would be likely to
increase entrainment at Central Valley Project and California
State Water Project pumping plants.
(3) Applicability of opinion.--This section shall not
affect the application of the salmonid biological opinion
from April 1 to May 31, unless the Secretary of Commerce
finds, based on the best scientific and commercial data
available, that some or all of such applicable requirements
may be adjusted during this time period to provide emergency
water supply relief without resulting in additional adverse
effects over and above the range of impacts authorized under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to any other
actions to benefit water supply, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Commerce shall consider
allowing through-Delta water transfers to occur during this
period if they can be accomplished consistent with section
3405(a)(1)(H) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Water transfers solely or exclusively through the California
State Water Project that do not require any use of
Reclamation facilities or approval by Reclamation are not
required to be consistent with section 3405(a)(1)(H) of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
(4) Monitoring.--During operations under this section, the
Commissioner of Reclamation, in coordination with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
shall undertake expanded monitoring programs and other data
gathering to improve Central Valley Project and California
State Water Project water supplies, to ensure incidental take
levels are not exceeded, and to identify potential negative
impacts, if any, and actions necessary to mitigate impacts of
the temporary operational flexibility to species listed under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(e) Effect of High Outflows.--In recognition of the high
outflow levels from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta
during the days this section is in effect under subsection
(b), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce shall not count such days toward the 5-day and 14-
day running averages of tidally filtered daily Old and Middle
River flow requirements under the smelt biological opinion
and salmonid biological opinion, as long as the Secretaries
avoid significant negative impact on the long-term survival
of listed fish species over and above the range of impacts
authorized under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(f) Level of Detail Required for Analysis.--In articulating
the determinations required under this section, the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce shall fully
satisfy the requirements herein but shall not be expected to
provide a greater level of supporting detail for the analysis
than feasible to provide within the short timeframe permitted
for timely decision making in response to changing conditions
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
(g) Omr Flows.--The Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Commerce shall, through the adaptive management
provisions in the salmonid biological opinion, limit OMR
reverse flow to -5,000 cubic feet per second based on date-
certain triggers in the salmonid biological opinions only if
using real-time migration information on salmonids
demonstrates that such action is necessary to avoid a
significant negative impact on the long-term survival of
listed fish species over and above the range of impacts
authorized under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(h) No Reinitiation of Consultation.--In implementing or at
the conclusion of actions under this section, the Secretary
of the Interior shall not reinitiate consultation on those
adjusted operations if there is no immediate significant
negative impact on the long-term survival of listed fish
species over and above the range of impacts authorized under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Any action taken under
this section that does not create an immediate significant
negative impact on the long-term survival of listed fish
species over and above the range of impacts authorized under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 will not alter application
of the take permitted by the incidental take statement in
those biological opinions under section 7(o)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.

state water project offset and water rights protections

Sec. 206. (a) Offset for State Water Project.--
(1) Implementation impacts.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall confer with the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife in connection with the implementation of this
section on potential impacts to any consistency determination
for operations of the State Water Project issued pursuant to
California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1.
(2) Additional yield.--If, as a result of the application
of this section, the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife--
(A) determines that operations of the State Water Project
are inconsistent with the consistency determinations issued
pursuant to California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1 for
operations of the State Water Project; or
(B) requires take authorization under California Fish and
Game Code section 2081 for operation of the State Water
Project in a manner that directly or indirectly results in
reduced water supply to the State Water Project as compared
with the water supply available under the smelt biological
opinion and the salmonid biological opinion; and as a result,
Central Valley Project yield is greater than it otherwise
would have been, then that additional yield shall be made
available to the State Water Project for delivery to State
Water Project contractors to offset that reduced water
supply.
(3) Notification related to environmental protections.--The
Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Commerce shall--
(A) notify the Director of the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife regarding any changes in the manner in
which the smelt biological opinion or the salmonid biological
opinion is implemented; and
(B) confirm that those changes are consistent with the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(b) Area of Origin and Water Rights Protections.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Commerce, in carrying out the mandates of this
section, shall take no action that--
(A) diminishes, impairs, or otherwise affects in any manner
any area of origin, watershed of origin, county of origin, or
any other water rights protection, including rights to water
appropriated before December 19, 1914, provided under State
law;
(B) limits, expands or otherwise affects the application of
section 10505, 10505.5, 11128, 11460, 11461, 11462, 11463 or
12200 through 12220 of the California Water Code or any other
provision of State water rights law, without respect to
whether such a provision is specifically referred to in this
section; or
(C) diminishes, impairs, or otherwise affects in any manner
any water rights or water rights priorities under applicable
law.
(2) Section 7 of the endangered species act.--Any action
proposed to be undertaken by the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to both this section
and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall be undertaken in a manner that
does not alter water rights or water rights priorities
established by California law or it shall not be undertaken
at all. Nothing in this subsection affects the obligations of
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(3) Effect of act.--
(A) Nothing in this section affects or modifies any
obligation of the Secretary of the Interior under section 8
of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 390, chapter 1093).
(B) Nothing in this section diminishes, impairs, or
otherwise affects in any manner any Project purposes or
priorities for the allocation, delivery or use of water under
applicable law, including the Project purposes and priorities
established under section 3402 and section 3406 of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575;
106 Stat. 4706).
(c) No Redirected Adverse Impacts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior and
Secretary of Commerce shall not carry out any specific action
authorized under this section that will directly or through
State agency action indirectly result in the involuntary
reduction of water supply to an individual, district, or
agency that has in effect a contract for water with the State
Water Project or the Central Valley Project, including
Settlement and Exchange contracts, refuge contracts, and
Friant Division contracts, as compared to the water supply
that would be provided in the absence of action under this
section, and nothing in this section is intended to modify,
amend or affect any of the rights and obligations of the
parties to such contracts.
(2) Action on determination.--If, after exploring all
options, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Commerce makes a final determination that a proposed action
under this section cannot be carried out in accordance with
paragraph (1), that Secretary--
(A) shall document that determination in writing for that
action, including a statement of the facts relied on, and an
explanation of the basis, for the decision;
(B) may exercise the Secretary's existing authority,
including authority to undertake the drought-related actions
otherwise addressed in this title, or to otherwise comply
with other applicable law, including the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
(C) shall comply with subsection (a).
(d) Allocations for Sacramento Valley Water Service
Contractors.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:

[[Page H3069]]

(A) Existing central valley project agricultural water
service contractor within the sacramento river watershed.--
The term ``existing Central Valley Project agricultural water
service contractor within the Sacramento River Watershed''
means any water service contractor within the Shasta,
Trinity, or Sacramento River division of the Central Valley
Project that has in effect a water service contract on the
date of enactment of this section that provides water for
irrigation.
(B) Year terms.--The terms ``Above Normal'', ``Below
Normal'', ``Dry'', and ``Wet'', with respect to a year, have
the meanings given those terms in the Sacramento Valley Water
Year Type (40-30-30) Index.
(2) Allocations of water.--
(A) Allocations.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary
of the Interior shall make every reasonable effort in the
operation of the Central Valley Project to allocate water
provided for irrigation purposes to each existing Central
Valley Project agricultural water service contractor within
the Sacramento River Watershed in accordance with the
following:
(i) Not less than 100 percent of the contract quantity of
the existing Central Valley Project agricultural water
service contractor within the Sacramento River Watershed in a
``Wet'' year.
(ii) Not less than 100 percent of the contract quantity of
the existing Central Valley Project agricultural water
service Contractor within the Sacramento River Watershed in
an ``Above Normal'' year.
(iii) Not less than 100 percent of the contract quantity of
the existing Central Valley Project agricultural water
service contractor within the Sacramento River Watershed in a
``Below Normal'' year that is preceded by an ``Above Normal''
or ``Wet'' year.
(iv) Not less than 50 percent of the contract quantity of
the existing Central Valley Project agricultural water
service contractor within the Sacramento River Watershed in a
``Dry'' year that is preceded by a ``Below Normal'', ``Above
Normal'', or ``Wet'' year.
(v) Subject to clause (ii), in any other year not
identified in any of clauses (i) through (iv), not less than
twice the allocation percentage to south-of-Delta Central
Valley Project agricultural water service contractors, up to
100 percent.
(B) Effect of clause.--Nothing in clause (A)(v) precludes
an allocation to an existing Central Valley Project
agricultural water service contractor within the Sacramento
River Watershed that is greater than twice the allocation
percentage to a south-of-Delta Central Valley Project
agricultural water service contractor.
(3) Protection of environment, municipal and industrial
supplies, and other contractors.--
(A) Environment.--Nothing in paragraph (2) shall adversely
affect--
(i) the cold water pool behind Shasta Dam;
(ii) the obligation of the Secretary of the Interior to
make water available to managed wetlands pursuant to section
3406(d) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public
Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4722); or
(iii) any obligation--

(I) of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce under the smelt biological opinion, the salmonid
biological opinion, or any other applicable biological
opinion; or
(II) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) or any other applicable law (including
regulations).

(B) Municipal and industrial supplies.--Nothing in
paragraph (2)--
(i) modifies any provision of a water Service contract that
addresses municipal or industrial water shortage policies of
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce;
(ii) affects or limits the authority of the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to adopt or modify
municipal and industrial water shortage policies;
(iii) affects or limits the authority of the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to implement a
municipal or industrial water shortage policy;
(iv) constrains, governs, or affects, directly or
indirectly, the operations of the American River division of
the Central Valley Project or any deliveries from that
division or a unit or facility of that division; or
(v) affects any allocation to a Central Valley Project
municipal or industrial water service contractor by
increasing or decreasing allocations to the contractor, as
compared to the allocation the contractor would have received
absent paragraph (2).
(C) Other contractors.--Nothing in subsection (b)--
(i) affects the priority of any individual or entity with
Sacramento River water rights, including an individual or
entity with a Sacramento River settlement contract, that has
priority to the diversion and use of Sacramento River water
over water rights held by the United States for operations of
the Central Valley Project;
(ii) affects the obligation of the United States to make a
substitute supply of water available to the San Joaquin River
exchange contractors;
(iii) affects the allocation of water to Friant division
contractors of the Central Valley Project;
(iv) results in the involuntary reduction in contract water
allocations to individuals or entities with contracts to
receive water from the Friant division; or
(v) authorizes any actions inconsistent with State water
rights law.
Sec. 207. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Natural Resources
Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al., Eastern
District of California, No. Civ. 9 S-88-1658 LKK/GGH) or
subtitle A of title X of Public Law 111-11.
Sec. 208. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for the purchase of water in the State of California to
supplement instream flow within a river basin that has
suffered a drought within the last two years.
Sec. 209. The Commissioner of Reclamation is directed to
work with local water and irrigation districts in the
Stanislaus River Basin to ascertain the water storage made
available by the Draft Plan of Operations in New Melones
Reservoir (DRPO) for water conservation programs, conjunctive
use projects, water transfers, rescheduled project water and
other projects to maximize water storage and ensure the
beneficial use of the water resources in the Stanislaus River
Basin. All such programs and projects shall be implemented
according to all applicable laws and regulations. The source
of water for any such storage program at New Melones
Reservoir shall be made available under a valid water right,
consistent with the State water transfer guidelines and any
other applicable State water law. The Commissioner shall
inform the Congress within 18 months setting forth the amount
of storage made available by the DRPO that has been put to
use under this program, including proposals received by the
Commissioner from interested parties for the purpose of this
section.

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, $1,825,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount, $149,500,000 shall be available until September 30,
2018, for program direction.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Griffith

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

Page 43, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
Page 45, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $45,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly simple amendment, and it
is a commonsense amendment.
While the technologies could also be used that this amendment will
plus up for natural gas or oil, I will focus my attention on coal
because that is what happens in my district predominantly.
Over the last several years, as many of us know, there have been
numerous burdensome regulations on the coal industry and industries
that burn coal.
The very least we can do is to make sure that coal-fired power plants
and others dependent on coal, among those most heavily targeted, have
the technologies necessary to meet the standards being imposed on them.
In recent months, I have had many conversations and discussions with
a number of folks in southwest Virginia, but also folks at the
Department of Energy, about ways that we can better do the research
necessary to make clean coal technology available.
One thing is very clear. There is a future for coal, and it lies in
many ways in the technologies being researched and supported by the
Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy Research. We would love
to get parity. This amendment doesn't bring us to parity, but it gets
us a little bit closer.
My amendment would simply add $45 million for fossil energy research
and development from the energy efficiency and renewable energy account
for the purpose of aiding clean coal technology.
Now, just so you understand, the research money for energy efficiency
and renewable energy would still be at $1.775 billion and the research
money for fossil fuels, including coal, would only get plussed up to
690.
So you still have a greater amount of money by a little bit more than
2 to 1 going to other energies besides the fossil fuels.
Some of the key power providers in Virginia have made it clear that
coal

[[Page H3070]]

will continue to be a part of their strategy for a long time to come.
Dominion Power, at a recent conference that we had, indicated that,
by 2030, they expect that about 30 percent of their energy production
will be from coal. American Electric Power indicated that about half of
theirs in 2030 would still be from coal.
Now, what we have to do is we have to make sure that we get our
technologies in line to make sure that we can continue to burn coal,
but burn it in a cleaner fashion. While there are various clean coal
technologies currently in development, they will not be ready for
commercial use for years to come unless we change the timeline.
So my amendment would change that timeline. It will shorten that time
by putting more money into research for clean coal technologies.
So we have two intersecting interests here. Let's figure out a way we
can keep the jobs, particularly in southwest Virginia and central
Appalachia, and also burn coal more cleanly.
My amendment gives us a ray of hope, a step forward, to keeping those
high-paying coal jobs, at least some of them--we have lost thousands in
the last few years--but keeping those jobs while also finding ways to
burn the coal more cleanly.
This amendment will support both of these goals by ensuring
additional funding for clean coal research. That research can also be
used in natural gas. My favorite is chemical looping.
This is a reasonable approach, and I hope that the body will adopt
this amendment.
I appreciate that the underlying bill does provide a slight increase
in fossil fuel energy research over last year's level. But when you are
losing as many jobs as my district has, you have to fight for
everything you can get.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I appreciate Congressman Griffith's efforts
here, but, unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Let me just say that, in the base bill that we have worked very hard
on, there are $645 million in the account for fossil energy. That is
about $13 million more over the current fiscal year. In addition, it is
$285 million above the budget request.
So I think, if you put it in that frame, we have done quite well with
difficult choices inside our bill. The energy efficiency and renewable
energy account is already $248 million below this year and more than a
billion below the budget request.
So I would say to the gentleman that I don't think the offset you
have provided is a very good one.
We know that renewable energy is at the forefront of an energy
transformation that is already happening across our country, and we do
need a more balanced approach to energy.
While I do support fossil energy research and development and,
frankly, transition for communities that have been harmed by the
transformation in the energy sector--coal communities and coal-shipping
communities across this country--I really can't support this level of
disproportionate funding.
So I strongly oppose the amendment and do not agree with its offset.
I would urge my colleagues to join me in a ``no'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and
recognize that they did plus it up a little bit.
But when you look at the folks that I represent and the thousands of
folks who have lost their jobs in the mining industry, we have to do
more. We have to do more.
Everybody likes to talk about we are going to help, we are going to
transition. But some of my counties, quite frankly, what are you going
to transition them to?
There are no great roads. We should work on that as well. Frankly, we
have got trees and mountains. Recently, one of my counties had to build
a new high school because all of their high schools were in the
floodway. We had two pieces of land that were flat enough to build the
high school on in the entire county.
So when people say transition, I always say: What are you going to do
when you don't have the land to build factories and you don't have the
resources to do something else?
They have always done mining. They can continue to do mining. Let's
meet and compromise here and put research money in so that they can
continue to mine, continue to have jobs, and we can have a cleaner
burning fuel, but still use our coal.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, might I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 3 minutes remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I couldn't agree with Congressman Griffith
more about the necessity of transitioning communities.
When I look back to the 1990s when something called NAFTA passed--the
North American Free Trade Agreement--we were promised that there would
be a North American development bank and that any community that was
harmed in the South or the North would be helped.
The Federal Government never kept its word. It never kept its word.
Go try to find that North American development bank today and we look
at hollowed-out communities across this country.
If we look at the coal communities in--and Ohio has a lot of coal. We
actually have more Btus under the ground between Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, all the way to Illinois, than the Middle East has
oil. It is just a little bit harder. So we look at these communities
that have been so devastated, and the Federal Government kind of sat on
the side.
Yes, we had the Appalachian Regional Commission terribly underfunded
without the kind of bonding and development authority that should
exist.
I look at the steel communities that I represent. People in my
district are getting pink slips every day at our big steel companies
because of imported steel, and the Federal Government sits on its hand
here at the Federal level in the International Trade Commission and the
National Economic office over at the National Security Council. It
upsets me a great deal that we haven't been able to help communities so
impacted.
I hope that, for those communities that are suffering because of the
transition in the energy sector partly due to the discovery of natural
gas, quite frankly, in places like Ohio--and I am not sure about
Virginia--we really need the type of transition program that we should
have had back in the 1990s for the NAFTA communities and that we should
have had for the steel communities. The Federal Government is just too
far away from the places where we live to even see it sometimes.
So I share the gentleman's passion on that, but I really don't think
that we should take from the accounts that are providing some of the
future answers. I hope that regions like yours could move into the new
energy economy as well.
Up in the Lake Erie area where I live, we are trying very, very hard
to capture the wind. Lake Erie is the Saudi Arabia of wind, and it is
part of our new future and part of a new grid. We hope to be very
successful there. I hope that some of these new technologies could also
burgeon in regions of Virginia. There is no reason that they can't.
I believe the Department of Energy, the Department of Labor, the
Department of Commerce, and all of our departments have an obligation
to the communities that have been harmed because of policies that
happen in the private sector or the public sector, but we haven't been
so good at that as the Federal Government.
So I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I understand
his motivation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Griffith
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H3071]]

the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.

{time} 1930

Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), I offer an amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 43, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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 started by the Department of Energy to
improve freight and heavy duty vehicle efficiency.
The Committee on Appropriations acknowledged in their committee
report the success of the SuperTruck II program but recommended only
$20 million of the requested $60 million for the SuperTruck II program
to further improve efficiency in these vehicles.
SuperTruck II will continue dramatic improvements in the 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 II program by $2 million, it
will allow the Department of Energy to better achieve their freight
efficiency goals.
This amendment is fully offset by a decrease in the departmental
administration account.
I thank my colleague, Steve Cohen, for his continued work on this
important issue. I would also like to thank Chairman Simpson and
Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work on this bill. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of an amendment Congressman
Jerry McNerney and I are offering today to the Fiscal Year 2017 Energy
and Water Appropriations Act.
Our amendment would increase funding for the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy account by $2 million for the SuperTruck II program,
and it is fully offset.
The SuperTruck program at the Department of Energy (DOE) helps
research and develop more fuel efficient long-haul, tractor-trailers,
which is important not just for our environment but also for our
economy.
The types of improvements we may see as a result of this program
include better engine efficiency, aerodynamics, and truck weight.
The Appropriations Committee included $20 million of the requested
$60 million for the SuperTruck II program. While I am grateful for the
funding, I believe we can do more.
I would like to thank Congressman McNerney for his help on this
amendment as well as Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for all
their efforts on this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Buck

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

Page 43, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $0)''.
Page 44, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
to $0)''.
Page 44, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $0)''.
Page 45, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
to $0)''.
Page 45, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $0)''.
Page 45, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $0)''.
Page 80, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,481,616,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak
about this amendment to the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2017.
This amendment zeroes out several Federal agency programs that have
been in the business of picking winners and losers. Federal bureaucrats
are not venture capitalists or R&D specialists. They have no business
exposing billions of taxpayer dollars to potentially risky investments.
We must continue to invest in renewable, nuclear, and fossil energy
technologies; but the investments in these projects should be left to
the private sector, where firms can decide whether or not to take on
the risk.
Additionally, the discoveries from these projects are owned by the
companies themselves, rather than placed into the private domain to
benefit our Nation more fully. Moreover, wherever the Federal
Government doles out taxpayer dollars, high-paid lobbyists stand at the
ready to collect their share.
The success of companies pursuing new energy technologies should
depend on those technologies' merits. This amendment eliminates those
crony subsidies.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, it is interesting that a Member from Colorado,
which is where the National Renewable Energy Laboratory--I would sure
like to have that in Ohio--is headquartered. I have actually visited
that site and have been so impressed by the basic research that has
been done in so many arenas that has brought new products to market.
When I look at the solar industry, for example, were it not for the
photovoltaic research of the U.S. Department of Energy back in the
early days, it would not now be employing more people than those who
work in many of the other energy sectors put together. It is amazing to
me that it is one of the fastest growing segments of our market.
But the basic research that had to be done--the thin film research,
the work on silicates, on cadmium tellurides, so many of the
ingredients--frankly, there was no company that was able to take that
risk in the past. And they certainly couldn't get the funding; I can
guarantee you that. Some of this research started back in the 1980s. So
I think that the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs are
just terribly important.
On the nuclear front, there is no private company that has figured
out how to really handle the waste product from nuclear. We have to
invest in nuclear energy to build a safer world for the future, and the
Department of Energy does that. No private company takes that on.
In fact, we have a lot of waste. There are environmental management
projects across this country, hundreds of billions of dollars. We have
to handle cleanup from past years and the cold war. No private company
is able to do that on its own. That is something that is a legacy of
our defense structure.
I am really not quite sure what the gentleman's objective is here,
but I don't want to take America backwards. I want her to move forward.
We are now at 91 percent in terms of our ability to fund our energy
use here in our country, compared to half that just several years ago.
That is a real accomplishment. It is something that the public sector
and the private sector are able to work on together.
I really think that the gentleman's efforts are misguided, and I
would have to oppose this amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Like the ranking member, I would oppose this amendment. It would
reduce funds in the following accounts: EERE, nuclear energy, fossil
energy, and other accounts throughout this bill.
We spend an awful lot of time making sure that we continue our
responsibility to effectively manage government spending, and we have
worked

[[Page H3072]]

tirelessly to that end. These are targeted funds to provide needed
investments and to efficiently and safely utilize our natural resources
and invest in the next technological innovations.
It is interesting that years ago, we used to have what were called
the Bell Laboratories, and they did a lot of the research and stuff
that is now done by government. Because it has gotten too expensive,
any individual company can't do a lot of the research that is done.
I will give you an example in the nuclear energy arena. At the Idaho
National Lab, we have the advanced test reactors. It is the only one in
the United States that does this. Private companies come, as well as
government and other organizations, to test new fuels, new designs of
fuels, and those types of things. This is not something that can be
done by the private sector.
So there are a lot of things that the government does and research
that the government does that the private sector, frankly, just doesn't
have the resources to do that need to get done. That is what we expect
our national laboratories to do. That is what EERE does, what fossil
energy research does, and other things.
As I said, some of these programs, like the ATR, some of the funding
is paid by the companies that come and use the facility and those types
of things, as they have to. And besides that, it is good for our
national security.
It is an interesting fact--and I think my numbers are accurate; if
they are not exactly accurate, they are pretty close--that when the
first nuclear-powered submarine was launched, it was fueled for 6
months and then had to be refueled. But through the research that they
have been able to do, the Navy, with the advanced test reactor, we now
fuel ships for the life of the ship, which is an incredible
advancement. But that is done through government research.
So while it would be nice to say the private sector ought to do all
these things, the reality is the private sector can't do all of those
things.
I would agree with the gentlewoman and oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, the ranking member asked what the purpose is,
and I would be glad to answer that.
We have over $19 trillion of debt. We are running up huge annual
deficits in this country. We do not have a major war going on right
now, and we do not have a recession going on right now, but we continue
to overspend.
This is an area where I contend that the private sector has got to do
a lot more than it is doing if we are going to try to balance our
budget some day. That may seem like folly to some, but I think the
impact of going off the fiscal cliff is far greater than the impact of
cutting funds for research in this area.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered By Mr. Beyer

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) to the end that the Chair puts the question
de novo.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico

Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 43, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $25,000,000) (reduced by $25,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman
from New Mexico and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, New Mexico is,
frankly, very fortunate to have many natural resources, including vast
amounts of minerals, oil, and natural gas; but water is, by far, New
Mexico's most precious commodity.
As a Representative from New Mexico, I have witnessed the devastating
impact that long-term severe drought can have on businesses,
communities, and the State. Drought conditions threaten the livelihoods
of farmers and ranchers who depend on this natural resource to run
their operations.
In addition, there are many communities in New Mexico, both in urban
and rural areas, that may not survive without an affordable and a
sustainable water source. These conditions go beyond New Mexico and
extend, in fact, to the entire Southwest.
Based on the most recent available science, experts believe that this
region of the country will continue to experience megadroughts in the
future.
It is critical that we make investments now not only to protect and
conserve this scare resource but to also research and develop
alternative, affordable, and sustainable water technologies to ensure
that Southwest communities and businesses can continue to thrive in
persistent drought conditions.
My amendment would prioritize $25 million for an energy water
desalination hub, as proposed by the Department of Energy. The hub will
develop the technology to reduce the cost, energy input, and carbon
emission levels of water desalination.
Desalination technology has been around for many years, and I have
visited several countries that are currently using desalination
technology.
New Mexico would greatly benefit from this technology, since the
State has large brackish water reserves that could become viable water
resources through desalination. Desalination can also help the State's
oil and gas industry to address water shortage and wastewater disposal
challenges.
Despite the number of benefits and industry advancements,
unfortunately water desalination is still cost-prohibitive for small
communities and companies. This is why I think it is crucial that we
develop this technology to make it as affordable and energy-efficient
as possible.
Making important investments in water technologies like water
desalination will be critical in determining the future of Southwest
communities and businesses.
Now, I am disappointed, of course, that this is not something that is
currently included in the bill. I am looking forward to working with
the majority on this really important issue.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. I yield to the gentlewoman
from Ohio.

{time} 1945

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I think Congresswoman Lujan Grisham has done such a phenomenal job
here, and I appreciate her interest in the necessity of desalinization
work and how important the Department of Energy is in finding a
solution that is cost effective and the most advanced energy system we
can have to desalinate as we move forward. I share her interest in
finding funding for this important work, and, hopefully, in a
conference situation, we can provide a way to provide some resources.
I really applaud the gentlewoman for her path-breaking efforts on
behalf of a very important issue.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

[[Page H3073]]

Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry

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

Page 43, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, the current bill cuts hydropower by $15
million, and this amendment seeks to restore it. It offsets it with
Department of Energy, or DOE, administrative costs. Actually, the
amendment reduces outlays by $8 million because, Mr. Chair, water power
programs are vitally important to reducing our dependence on foreign
energy sources.
Hydropower is available in every region of the country, every single
region. Literally, 2,200 hydropower plants provide America's most
abundant source of clean, renewable energy and account for 67 percent
of domestic renewable generation, for a total of 7 percent of the total
generation across the country.
This amendment stands to create 1.4 million new jobs by 2025, Mr.
Chair, and this would be harnessing a truly renewable and green source
of energy.
Let me just talk about some of the advantages of hydro as opposed to
wind and solar.
Hydro has a predictable, year-round output. Solar and wind require,
often, a battery backup or an alternative power source if they are
going to be viable. Even routine maintenance on a windmill way up there
is problematic and expensive, where hydro is right down on the ground
where we are. It is easy to maintain.
Hydropower facilities are quiet and often unobtrusive. Most of the
neighbors don't even know they are there. Oftentimes, we hear
complaints about wind generation and the noise it also generates along
with the power.
Hydropower--I think this is the most important--is baseload. It is a
baseload source of energy. It occurs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
It is actually what backs up the other intermittent sources of
alternative energy. So, it is really important in that context.
Now, hydropower faces a comprehensive regulatory approval process,
and some folks don't like that. But the important part about that is
everybody is involved: FERC, Federal and State resource agencies, local
governments, tribes, NGOs, and the public. Everybody gets buy-in before
a hydro plant goes on line. Sixty thousand megawatts of preliminary
permits and projects await final approval and are pending currently
before the Commission in 45 States.
Mr. Chair, this is not parochial.
There are 80,000 nonpowered dams across the U.S. right now that could
accept hydropower. There are 600 that have an immediate capability to
produce energy right now. That is 80,000 and 600 across the country
right now. Pennsylvania, itself, has 678 megawatts of untapped power in
the form of hydro.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to offer the
amendment. I understand the $15 million concerns some Members, and I,
too, am concerned about spending. So this one is bipartisan, but I am
hopeful others will follow.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Bonamici

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

Page 43, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $9,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, 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 to offer a bipartisan
amendment with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman Perry, and
my colleague from Maine, Congresswoman Pingree, in support of water
power technologies.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment would increase funding to the Department
of Energy's Water Power Program by $9 million. This increase is offset
by an equal amount by the departmental administration account.
As Congress promotes technologies that can help lower our
constituents' energy bills, we must invest in new and innovative
solutions, and my colleague just made a case for why hydropower is so
important.
The Department of Energy has estimated that our Nation's marine
energy resources could, in the future, represent a very good portion of
U.S. generation needs.
Oregon State University, the University of Washington, and the
University of Alaska Fairbanks are leveraging 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 with the domestic location to test
wave energy devices, along with other technology, instead of traveling
to Scotland to use their test center.
Without continued Federal investment, Europe will remain the leader.
China is investing heavily in these technologies as well.
Federal partnerships with educational institutions and the private
sector are necessary to further the research and development efforts
already well underway and close the gap for these technologies on the
verge of commercial viability.
The National Hydropower Association, along with its Pumped Storage
and Marine Energy Councils have endorsed our bipartisan amendment.
Investments in these technologies and this source of energy will spur
domestic industry and create good-paying jobs and economic
opportunities in our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bipartisan amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I seek the time in opposition, though I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my good friend and
colleague from Oregon. She has been a champion on this before. She
fully understands, as I do, that resources across the country are
strained. We don't have a lot of extra money to go around. And for all
the reasons that I pointed out and the reasons that she pointed out and
the Northwest agreeing with the Northeast, let's work together on what
works.
We know this works. It is one of the oldest sources of electric
energy in the world. Why are we wasting our time and collective energy
in the form of funds and time on these other things that might be nice
and they might be great years after the development, but this works
right now and doesn't break the bank?
This is a good amendment, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides
to support it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank my colleague from
Pennsylvania and my colleague from Maine for cosponsoring this
important amendment. This is a modest increase in the Water Power
Program. It supports marine and hydropower energy technology, and I
urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

Page 43, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $9,750,000)''.
Page 45, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $13,000,000)''.

[[Page H3074]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this bill, in its current form, appropriates
considerably above the administration's mark for fossil energy research
and development. My amendment doesn't take away all of the amount that
has been plussed up. It just takes a small amount of that--$13 million
out of the $645 million, which is the amount the bill is above last
year's appropriations--and directs those funds to the Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy fund, which is an extremely important fund that
funds a lot of important activities across our country.
As an example, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy fund is
working with American manufacturers to apply 3-D printing, also called
additive manufacturing, to renewable technologies. Blades are one of
the most costly components of wind turbines, but additive manufacturing
has the promise of reducing costs. There is a lot of important basic
research that supports it.
In addition, they are working on--it is funded by EERE--advanced
technologies for microgrid projects, coordinated with the Electric
Power Research Institute, to have localized grids that are connected to
traditional grids--but can also disconnect--to operate autonomously and
help mitigate grid disturbances, meaning more security for our national
energy system when we can avoid large-scale downtime from large grid
outages.
Another example is solar resource maps, leading to solar exports to
enhance the quality and accuracy of our research maps across the
country, helping to facilitate exports of solar PV products to other
countries, like India, by identifying high-quality solar projects in
India that are creative and profitable.
Another example of the EERE is the Vehicle Technologies Office to the
Clean Cities coalition in support of a project fostering electric
vehicle readiness in the Rocky Mountain area to foster State policies
to increase the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles.
As we know, plug-in engines powered from the grid are far more
efficient at converting energy, whether it comes from a balance of coal
and wind and solar, than an internal combustion engine that just runs
off gasoline.
So the budget estimate for the fund that we are talking about was
$360 million. The plus up recommended was $645 million. This would
simply remove $13 million and allocate it to a very important account
that I hope we can build bipartisan support for.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. The
amendment would cut funding for the Fossil Energy Research and
Development program and increase the EERE program by a similar amount.
Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide for 81
percent of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and
generates 67 percent of the Nation's electricity. It will continue to
provide for the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable
future.
Let me repeat that. They provide for 81 percent of the energy used by
the Nation's homes and businesses and generate 67 percent of the
Nation's electricity.
The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions in fossil
energy and, instead, funds these programs at $645 million, or $13
million above last year's request.
With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil Energy will
research how to capture emissions from our power plants on how water
can be more effectively used in power plants and how coal can be used
to produce electric power through fuel cells.
This amendment would reduce the funding for a program that ensures we
use our Nation's abundant fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly
as possible. In fact, just increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel by
1 percent would power millions of households, all without using a pound
of additional fuel from the ground. That is the kind of research this
program represents.
Therefore, I must oppose this amendment, and I urge Members to vote
``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I
rise in support of the Polis amendment to increase funding for the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. That office is one of
the most forward-looking segments within the Department of Energy and
the group that is driving the huge surge we are seeing across the
country in energy innovation.
The future we all envision is in renewable energy, smart grids,
energy storage, and energy efficiency. One hundred and ninety countries
made it clear to the world that they support this new future in Paris
at the end of the last year, and the funding of EERE is critical to
ensuring the U.S. leads the world into that future.
Let me mention the solar energy account, in particular, is yielding
serious benefits. The number of workers in this growing renewable
sector has doubled over the last 5 years, and its rapid expansion shows
no signs of slowing down, with solar projected to add 9.5 gigawatts of
new energy this year, more than any other energy source.

{time} 2000

It employs more Americans than work on oil rigs and in gas fields,
just in the solar sector.
So I support this amendment to expand the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Office and the increase in funding that Congressman
Polis is offering for a clean energy future for all.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am hopeful that this amendment will pass. I have prepared some
other amendments that specifically look at the fossil fuel R&D as a
wasteful expenditure.
To be clear, this one does not contemplate that. It still increases
the level substantially from the budget estimate, which is $360 million
for this account. The recommended 2017 level in the chairman's mark is
$645 million, so there is a plus-up of $285 million over the
President's budget for this line item.
So I think it is entirely appropriate to just take $13 million from
that, without prejudice with regard to the rest, put it into the Energy
Efficiency Renewable Energy Fund, which I had the opportunity to talk
about some of the great advances that it makes for energy security with
regard to our grid, for manufacturing, and job creation through 3D
printing of wind blades, and many other worthy causes.
I am hopeful that this body chooses to gain from the best of both
worlds by adopting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

Page 43, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $285,000,000)''.
Page 45, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $285,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, look, now let's get serious here. Fossil
fuel research and development is simply the wrong direction for our
country. Putting more and more money behind oil and gas, which we need
to move away from, over time, is only increasing our sunk costs in an
economy that leads to

[[Page H3075]]

climate change and long-term ruin. Not only our economy is ruined by
the use of oil and gas, but health and safety for communities, our
oceans, our air, and our world.
The fact that this bill has appropriated almost $300 million more
than the President requested shows how lopsided the priorities in the
bill are. This is an enormous subsidy for the oil and gas industry. One
of the most profitable industries in the world is more than capable of
funding its own research and development without subsidies from the
Federal Government using the taxpayer money from hardworking Americans
to further fund them.
This bill would simply reduce the fossil fuel account back to the
President's recommended level, and the remainder would go to reduce the
budget deficit.
I think that this is an important point to point out, that many of
the components of the fossil energy R&D expenditure line make our air
dirtier, our water dirtier, and, of course, move to destruction of the
climate. So, in many ways, the less we can do the better.
At a time of record budget deficits, finding smart savings by
reducing handouts to the oil and gas industry is something that can
help restore some semblance of fiscal responsibility to our Nation.
There is an example of an account under the Division of Fossil Energy
that creates technology that allows oil and gas companies to drill in
oil shale formations where there is less than 50,000 barrels per day.
We should be doing less oil shale drilling, not ways to find more. As
a district and a State directly affected by oil shale drilling, we deal
with all of the economic externalities and costs every day. Oil shale
is one of the most dirty extraction methods that exists, and the
distillation for oil shale releases toxic pollutants into the air, like
sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxide.
If companies want to research new extraction technologies, more power
to them, as long as they abide by the EPA and other health and safety
guidelines. But for taxpayer money and subsidies to go to developing
something that has been devastating for my State and for the country is
really an abomination, and I am hopeful that, in the name of reducing a
budget deficit and finding smart savings, we can reduce this line
significantly back to the $360 million that was in the original budget
estimate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions
of the bill not yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in
the bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member seek to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. POLIS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, it is simply the deficit savings account, so
when the money isn't spent, that is where it goes. The deficit savings
account is not an outlay. It is simply not being spent in the first
place.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill.
Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado proposes
a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill, as argued by the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, it may not avail itself
of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, when would it be in order to present the
amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair has ruled on that particular amendment.
The gentleman may seek to offer an amendment at the appropriate point
in the reading of the bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, further point of parliamentary inquiry.
If the deficit reduction account is not cited, what happens to the
savings that are designated under the bill?
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will not respond to a hypothetical. The
matter can be addressed in debate.
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, $225,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount, $28,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2018, 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 and the purchase of no more than three emergency
service vehicles for replacement only, $1,011,616,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount, $80,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2018, for program direction.

Fossil Energy Research and Development

For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out
fossil energy research and development activities, under the
authority of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the acquisition of interest,
including defeasible and equitable interests in any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility acquisition
or expansion, and for conducting inquiries, technological
investigations and research concerning the extraction,
processing, use, and disposal of mineral substances without
objectionable social and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3,
1602, and 1603), $645,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of such amount $59,475,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2018, for program direction.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

Page 45, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $645,000,000)''.
Page 80, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $645,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment has been
revised, and if I might request that the Clerk report the revised
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Would the gentleman like to withdraw his earlier
amendment?
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
earlier amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Colorado?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

Page 45, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $285,000,000)''.
Page 80, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $285,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page H3076]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I believe with this new structure of this
amendment we have now addressed the procedural issue around deficit
reduction. We are now, again, with this amendment, seeking to reduce
the fossil energy subsidies back to the level requested by the
President and return the savings to our Federal coffers, namely, by not
spending them in the first place.
So, again, in previous amendments, we talked about spending some on
renewable energy. In this case, it doesn't increase any of those lines.
What it does do is simply decrease the subsidies to the fossil energy
industry, including some of the research priorities we talked about,
which private companies are welcome to pursue.
But I don't want to go back to Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer in my district
and say, guess what, your hard-earned tax money is going to subsidize
these multi-billion dollar international corporations to do their
research for them.
This amendment would do that. It would then allow the savings to not
be spent and to reduce our deficit.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's
amendment. He would cut $285 million out of the fossil energy program.
What is interesting about this is that they say that this is an
unbalanced bill because we have increased funding for fossil energy.
And if you look at the amount of the electricity in this country and
the energy that is produced by fossil energy, the research done in
fossil energy by those big companies, as the gentleman suggests, is
important, and it is proportional to the amount of energy produced by
fossil fuels in this country.
To suggest that let's make sure that we don't do any fossil fuel
research or we cut it substantially suggests that we don't do any
subsidies to any of the other fuels in this country. We don't do any
wind subsidies. We don't do any solar subsidies or any of the other
types of things for these big companies. In fact, we do loan guarantees
for a lot of them that go out of business.
So I think this is important, and striking the majority of these
funds--or at least taking it back to what the President recommended--
the problem is that the bill created a balanced, all-of-the-above
energy policy.
It is the administration's proposal that was unbalanced, and focused
mainly on renewable energies and ignored, to a large degree, the
majority of the fuel that we use today, the energy sources we use
today, and that is the fuel of fossil fuels.
As I said in the last debate on one of the earlier amendments, 81
percent of the fuel we use today, and if you ask most experts, they
don't expect that to go down in the near future or even in the long-
term future. It is going to remain a major portion of our energy
portfolio for years to come.
So I would oppose this amendment. What we do in the fossil energy
research program is very important to developing the clean source of
energy that we all want.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2015

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, we have a somewhat ironic situation where
the Republicans are saying: President Obama, you don't want to spend
enough. President Obama, you have to spend more.
This from the so-called party of fiscal responsibility telling our
President's budget: You aren't spending enough, you aren't spending
enough on fossil fuels on this case, spend hundreds of billions of
dollars more of money we don't have that we are borrowing from China
and Saudi Arabia to fund a legacy technology that we are moving away
from.
Of course, we still rely on fossil fuels. The gentleman won't have
any disagreement, and I am not trying to zero out the account. We are
simply reducing it to the level that the President wants to spend at
rather than throwing more and more money hand over fist like this
Republican tax-and-spend Congress continues to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that that is just kind of a
bogus argument. It is not that we are saying to the President: You have
to spend this money in this area.
We are rebalancing the portfolio. We are not spending any more money
than the President recommended in the entire bill--well, we are about
$285 million, or $259 million, but most of that is in the weapons
activities. But we are rebalancing the portfolio. We are spending less
than the President wants to spend in other areas. So to say, oh, we are
just trying to spend money is not the case. We have different
priorities.
We want an all-of-the-above energy strategy, which is what this bill
represents. We spend money in solar, we spend money in wind, we spend
money in nuclear, and we spend money in fossil energy. Those are all
important. So just because the gentleman doesn't like fossil energy
doesn't mean that we ought to do away with the research on it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment would do is reduce the
budget deficit by $285 million. It gives Congress an opportunity to
say: Let's not spend more than the President of the United States
wants; let's make some reasonable cutbacks to levels that are in the
budget estimate already; and rather than throw subsidies hand over fist
to the most profitable industry on the face of the planet, instead of
rebalancing, let's move towards balancing our budget.
I came here to reduce our deficit. I support a constitutional
amendment to balance our budget. We haven't been able to have a vote on
that in this body this session of Congress. By reducing this $285
million of expenditures where we found an area where Congress actually
wants to spend $285 million more than President Obama wants to spend,
let's just go back to what President Obama wants to spend, okay, rather
than be even more profligate throwing money hand over the fist after a
legacy industry and research that should be done by highly profitable
private companies, let's simply cut it back to the level in the
President's budget and move towards balancing rather than rebalancing.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if that is the case, then I
suspect that the gentleman, if that is his desire, then I suspect that
the gentleman supports the Republican plan to not spend as much money
in the EERE as the President wanted because we are spending less in
EERE, and in some other programs within the Department of Energy we are
spending less than the administration wanted. So I am glad to hear that
he would support the Republican position on that because we are
spending less.
Now, there is one thing we both agree on. I would like to see a
balanced budget amendment before us. I think it would be important that
we would pass one. That is not what we are debating today. What we are
debating today is the Energy and Water Development program. What we do
is we have a cap on how much we can spend. That cap is within the
bipartisan budget that was agreed to last year. I suspect the gentleman
probably voted for it. I don't know that for sure, but I suspect he
probably did. This is within that budget.
If the gentleman wants to decrease the funding in EERE and all of the
other programs that the Republicans have reduced funding in, then, gee,
I will go along with him.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I would and I have supported across the board 1
percent cuts and 3 percent cuts. I am happy to do it on this bill, too.
I hope that somebody offers one. I haven't prepared one. Usually Mrs.
Blackburn prepares those. I usually vote for them as long as they are
reasonable.

[[Page H3077]]

What we have here is a targeted cut that can reduce the budget
deficit by $285 million by simply spending as much as President Obama
wants to spend. We shouldn't need a balanced budget amendment. I
support it. Let's bring it to the floor. I am glad the gentleman
agrees. I hope he tells his conference and the majority leader to work
with Democrats on a bipartisan amendment to balance our budget.
But in the meantime, we needn't wait for that. Let's start right now.
Let's cut $285 million which will actually make a dent in this bill and
move towards balancing the budget rather than simply put it off for
tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that in EERE, the
administration requested $2.9 billion. We funded it at 1.8--1.8
something--1.86 or something like that. We saved a billion dollars. So
we actually are rebalancing the portfolio in what we think is
important. That is what we do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado.
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Technology Transitions

For Department of Energy expenses necessary for technology
transitions and commercialization activities in carrying out
the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), section 1001 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16391), and the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.),
$7,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2018.

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

For Department of Energy expenses necessary to carry out
naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities,
$14,950,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, unobligated
funds remaining from prior years shall be available for all
naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

For Department of Energy expenses necessary for Strategic
Petroleum Reserve facility development and operations and
program management activities pursuant to the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $257,000,000,
to remain available until expended.

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

For Department of Energy expenses necessary for Northeast
Home Heating Oil Reserve storage, operation, and management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $6,500,000, to remain available
until expended.

Energy Information Administration

For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out
the activities of the Energy Information Administration,
$122,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Katko

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

Page 47, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000)''.
Page 72, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, can we get a clarification of what
amendment the gentleman is offering?
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-report the amendment.
The Clerk reread the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, over the past several years, the Northern
Border Regional Commission has provided vital resources to economically
distressed communities along the northern border of New England and New
York. Each year, the commission selects a number of projects through a
competitive process that are aimed at spurring economic development,
improving infrastructure, and increasing access to health care among
other things.
This region, like many other communities in our country, has
experienced severe economic challenges in recent years. Mills and
factories have closed, populations of States are static or have
declined in some areas, and some industries are particularly hard-hit,
like the nuclear industry, and the change in market dynamics related
thereto.
For example, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant is closed. The
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant in my district is closing and putting
out of work 600 individuals with very high-paying jobs in an
economically distressed community.
This commission provides a smart, efficient, and targeted way of
spurring economic development across this region. My amendment would
increase the appropriation level in this bill from $5 million to $8
million in order to maintain the vital work of this commission. This
increase is fully offset by a decrease in funding for the Energy
Information Administration.
This amendment can give displaced workers job training, give them
back work, improve infrastructure, and boost the economy across this
challenged region.
At this time, however, I will withdraw my amendment, but I hope I can
work with the chairman moving forward to ensure that this vital program
is maintained to the benefit of the economies in the northern border
region.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KATKO. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's, my
colleague's, passion for the Northern Border Regional Commission, and I
will work with him in conference to see if additional funds can be
provided because it provides an important function in that area.
So I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $226,745,000, to
remain available until expended.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out
uranium enrichment facility decontamination and
decommissioning, remedial actions, and other activities of
title II of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297f et
seq.) and title A, subtitle X, of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 2296a et seq.), $698,540,000, to be derived
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund, to remain available until expended, of
which $32,959,000 shall be available in accordance with title
A, subtitle X, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Science

For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not more than 17 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance and
one bus, $5,400,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of such amount, $184,697,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2018, for program direction.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law
97-425), including the acquisition of real property or
facility construction or expansion, $150,000,000, to remain
available until expended, and to be derived from the Nuclear
Waste Fund: Provided, That of the amount provided under this
heading, $5,000,000 shall be made available to affected units
of local government, as defined in section 2(31) of the

[[Page H3078]]

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(31)), to
support the Yucca Mountain geologic repository, as authorized
by such Act.

Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out
the activities authorized by section 5012 of the America
COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 16538), $305,889,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of such amount,
$29,250,000 shall be available until September 30, 2018, for
program direction.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

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

Page 49, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $19,111,000)''.
Page 50, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $19,111,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Emmer of Minnesota). Pursuant to House
Resolution 743, the gentleman from California and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment with
Representatives Gibson, Peters, Dold, and Swalwell of California, to
increase funding for the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy,
otherwise known as ARPA-E.
I offered similar bipartisan amendments many times in the past, and
they have passed with bipartisan support.
The House bill includes roughly $306 million for ARPA-E this year,
which is an improvement over prior years, but it still falls $44
million below the President's request.
This amendment would not make up the full deficit of $44 million, but
would increase funding for ARPA-E by $19 million with the offset taken
from the administrative account. With this amendment, the House bill
would fund ARPA-E at $325 million. That is the same level as the Senate
bill, which acted in a bipartisan fashion to increase funding. While
passage of the amendment would mean that ARPA-E is still funded well
below the President's request, it will reinforce our commitment to
supporting high-risk, high-reward, and game-changing research.
ARPA-E is a revolutionary program that advances high-potential, high-
impact energy technologies that are simply too early for market
investment. ARPA-E projects have the potential to radically improve
U.S. economic security, national security, and environmental well-
being. ARPA-E empowers America's energy researchers with funding,
technical assistance, and market readiness.
ARPA-E is modeled after the highly successful Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which has produced groundbreaking
inventions for the Department of Defense and the Nation.
Energy is a national security issue. It is an economic imperative. It
is a health concern. It is an environmental necessity. Investing wisely
in this type of research going on at ARPA-E is exactly the direction we
should be going as a nation. We want to lead the energy revolution. We
don't want to see this advantage go to China or some other country.
If we are serious about staying in the forefront of the energy
revolution, we must continue to fully invest in the kind of cutting-
edge work that ARPA-E represents. By providing this additional funding
with the offset, we will send a clear signal of the seriousness of our
intent to remain the world leader.
I have a couple of my GOP colleagues who wanted to speak, Mr. Gibson
and Mr. Dold. I don't know if they are present.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the bipartisan measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

Such sums as are derived from amounts received from
borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b) of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512(b)) under this heading in prior
Acts, shall be collected in accordance with section 502(7) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided, That for
necessary administrative expenses to carry out this Loan
Guarantee program, $37,000,000 is appropriated, to remain
available until September 30, 2018: Provided further, That
$30,000,000 of the fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h)
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 shall be credited as
offsetting collections to this account to cover
administrative expenses and shall remain available until
expended, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2017
appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more
than $7,000,000: Provided further, That fees collected under
section 1702(h) in excess of the amount appropriated for
administrative expenses shall not be available until
appropriated: Provided further, That the Department of Energy
shall not subordinate any loan obligation to other financing
in violation of section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
or subordinate any Guaranteed Obligation to any loan or other
debt obligations in violation of section 609.10 of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas

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

Page 49, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
Page 80, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

{time} 2030

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to offer a commonsense amendment to the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill that I would think all Members can support.
First, I want to thank Chairman Simpson for his work on this
legislation and for continuing to prioritize the needs of the Nation's
harbors and waterways.
One of the most important responsibilities of the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee is to conduct oversight of the DOE programs under
the committee's jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman.
This includes the DOE Loan Programs Office. Our commitment to
rigorous oversight has led us to request that this office provide us
with their internal watch list, which describes each loan in their
current portfolio that DOE has determined to have existing or potential
challenges that may impact repayment or to be at risk of default. Can
you say ``Solyndra,'' Mr. Chairman? This request was made in December,
and, to date, the Department of Energy has refused.
The DOE Loan Guarantee Program has a track record of failed loans. In
March, reports surfaced that a solar power company with $1.6 billion in
taxpayer loan guarantees could fail to meet its contractual obligations
and be shut down. This is the kind of potential failure, Mr. Chairman,
that taxpayers can least afford. Full congressional oversight of this
program is absolutely necessary. The DOE has no justification for
withholding this list from Congress.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would reduce the program's administrative
budget by $7 million of Treasury funds, but leave in place the $30
million the DOE collects from fees generated by existing loan guarantee
recipients. These fees are used to monitor and oversee the existing
loan guarantee portfolio.
In the past year, DOE has announced several new loan solicitations.
However, the Department's failure to respond to a congressional inquiry
leaves us seeing red. That is what is wrong with our budget. Now the
deficit is in the red.
This requires us to act to protect taxpayer funds, Mr. Chairman. This
amendment would simply prevent the Department from issuing new loans
until it has complied with our investigation and provides the requested
documents to our committee.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I share my colleague's concern
regarding the Loan Guarantee Program and the nonresponse from the
Department to the Science, Space, and Technology

[[Page H3079]]

Committee that has requested the information--and I will guarantee you
that I will do all I can to make sure that they do respond to that--the
elimination of the funding would hurt Federal oversight of more than $8
billion in loan guarantees that are already out there.
The committee recommendation only provides costs the program needs to
monitor loans and conduct the proper oversight to ensure taxpayer funds
are being effectively managed, and you should have access to that
information that you have requested.
Let me be clear. The funds provided in this bill support
administrative operations only. Further, the bill rejects the
President's request for new loan guarantee authority.
The loans already committed will require oversight for many years to
come. Eliminating these funds for this administrative function is the
wrong approach and effectively removes the government's ability to
retrieve billions of dollars in loan fees.
Therefore, I have to oppose this amendment, but I understand why the
gentleman is offering it. I would say that I will work with you to make
sure that the Department is more responsive to the requests of the
committees.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for yielding
and join him in opposing this, I think, well-intentioned amendment. The
amendment would actually cut funding for the oversight of existing
loans. I don't think, in view of some of the things that have happened
in the past, that is the best course.
The program has had a significant beneficial impact on innovative
energy projects coast to coast that are generating energy today.
Therefore, I would agree with the chairman in opposing the amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to vote ``no'' at this
time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in my district on the Gulf Coast of
Texas, which is laden with energy--and I agree with Mr. Schiff of
California that energy is a national security issue--we have to have
agencies that are focused on energy, on programs, on loan guarantees,
where Americans get the most bang for their buck.
These agencies must be accountable. They have to understand that
Congress has to be in the driver's seat and is in the driver's seat. We
need to hold them accountable. They need to provide us with that list.
While I appreciate my colleague from Idaho's willingness to work with
us to make sure that the agency complies, I appreciate the
gentlewoman's comments. We are going to have to get their attention.
They have fees to continue to run their program that they collect from
those companies that they actually make the loan guarantees to.
I have to insist that we get their attention. My colleagues in the
14th Congressional District of the State of Texas want us to rein in
some of these agencies and make them accountable to the elected
representatives of the American people. So I have to insist that I push
forward with this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask
unanimous consent to offer it at this point in the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Vermont?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 46, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
Page 72, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Vermont and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, the northern border region, from Maine, to
New Hampshire, to Vermont, to New York, is a particularly hard hit
economic area. The Northern Border Regional Commission has been a
tremendous asset to help folks across that region--by the way,
inhabited by Republicans and Democrats--to start reviving their
economy.
The Commission is modeled, by the way, after the Appalachian Regional
Commission and provides Federal funds for critical economic and
community development projects throughout the Northeast. These lead to
new jobs and stronger communities.
Importantly, the Northern Border Regional Commission helps orient
Federal appropriations toward State-prioritized projects. The State is
very much a player in allocating where this money goes.
Through the collective vote of the Governors of these States, they
coordinate with the Federal co-chair to rank the funding applications.
This ensures accountability and effectiveness. It has worked.
In Vermont, for instance, the Commission has helped fund a number of
projects: $226,000 for Lyndon State College to establish a new 4-year
degree in hospitality and tourism management, one of the big drivers of
our economy in the Northern Border Region; $250,000 to the Northern
Community Investment Corporation for telecommunications infrastructure
that rural areas have to have; and $250,000 to the Vermont Agency of
Transportation to connect with the Washington Railroad network in
Barton, Vermont.
The Commission is having a similarly positive effect across the
Northeast: New York, New Hampshire, Maine, as well as Vermont. Our
amendment recognizes the effective work the Commission is doing and the
large need that remains unmet by restoring funding for the program to
last year's level of $7.5 million.
We are trying to avoid a cut, and we are trying to maintain level
funding. The increase in funding will go a long way in the communities
across the northern border to help them revitalize their economy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I understand the
gentleman's concerns for the economic hardships of his region and
appreciate his passion on this issue. His amendment would be an
increase of 50 percent above the funding in the bill.
Additionally, the amendment would pay for that increase with a cut to
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account. The bill funds the Reserve
account at the budget request in order to ensure the continued
operability of the Reserve. This funding will provide for the basic
annual costs as well as addressing some of the deferred maintenance
backlog.
I know it doesn't always sound exciting, but the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve is a Federal asset that must be properly maintained. It
contributes to our Nation's energy security and economic stability.
For these reasons, I must oppose the amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will
be postponed.

[[Page H3080]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

For Department of Energy administrative expenses necessary
in carrying out the Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Loan Program, $5,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2018.

Departmental Administration

For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), $233,971,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2018, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
not to exceed $30,000, plus such additional amounts as
necessary to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost
of work for others notwithstanding the provisions of the
Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That
such increases in cost of work are offset by revenue
increases of the same or greater amount: Provided further,
That moneys received by the Department for miscellaneous
revenues estimated to total $103,000,000 in fiscal year 2017
may be retained and used for operating expenses within this
account, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2017 appropriation from the
general fund estimated at not more than $130,971,000:
Provided further, That of the total amount made available
under this heading, $31,000,000 is for Energy Policy and
Systems Analysis.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

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

Page 50, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
(Mr. ELLISON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we can raise living standards for working
families all across the United States if we use the Federal dollars to
create good jobs.
My amendment would reprogram funds to create an Office of Good Jobs
in the Department of Energy that would help ensure that the
Department's procurement grant making and regulatory decisions
encourage the creation of decently paid jobs, collective bargaining
rights, and responsible employment practices.
Right now the U.S. Government is America's leading low-wage job
creator, funding over 2 million poverty jobs through contracts, loans,
and grants with corporate America. That is more than the total number
of low-wage workers employed by Walmart and McDonald's combined.
This is a fact, Mr. Chairman, and I think it should alarm all of us.
The Federal Government should not lead the race to the bottom for
poorly paid low-wage jobs.
U.S. contract workers earn so little that nearly 40 percent use
public assistance programs, Mr. Chairman, like food stamps and section
8, to feed and shelter their families.
To add insult to injury, many of these low-wage U.S. contract workers
are driven deeper into poverty because their employers steal their
wages and break other Federal labor laws. Not all. Many Federal
contractors are excellent, but some do steal wages, and they tend to
get away with it.
Take, for example, the story of Edilicia Banegas. Edilicia is a
single mom. Edilicia worked for 7 years at the Ronald Reagan Building
food court, a Federal building.
Her employer stole her wages, paid her with cash under the table,
used checks from two different establishments in the same food court to
avoid paying her overtime, and retaliated against her when she and her
coworkers stood up for their rights.
Edilicia has been on strike several times to highlight the plight of
low-wage Federal contract workers in Washington, D.C., and across the
country.
Well, what about the story of Mayra Tito. Mayra is a Pentagon food
court worker who was fired for challenging her managers to comply with
labor laws and for going on strike multiple times.
She is a first-generation immigrant struggling to pay her tuition at
George Mason University and now works odd jobs to make ends meet. Her
experience at the Pentagon has inspired her to go to law school to help
workers defend their rights.
Mr. Chairman, research shows that Federal contractors break Federal
laws somewhat on a regular basis. A U.S. Senate report, for example,
found that over 30 percent of the biggest penalties for lawbreaking
were filed against the biggest U.S. contractors, people who the
procurement process got money from the U.S. taxpayer.

{time} 2045

But workers aren't the only ones who would benefit from this new
office. This new office would also benefit law-abiding businesses and
high-road employers--employers who play by the rules but who get put at
a competitive disadvantage because they obey the law. The Office of
Good Jobs would direct taxpayer dollars to American businesses that
play by the rules and ensure that cheaters don't get a leg up.
It is unfair to make law-abiding companies compete with contractors
who are willing to cut corners. Think about it: you are a law-abiding
company that fought hard for that contract, but now the Federal
Government is going to give it to your competitors who are willing to
steal from their workers?
Plus, we know that contractors who consistently adhere to labor laws
are more likely to have greater productivity and an increased
likelihood of timely, predictable, and successful delivery of goods and
services to the Federal Government. Bad contractors usually not only
cheat workers, but they cheat the Federal Government by poor
performance.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, these are tax dollars that should be used
to build the middle class, to support high-road employers, and to
provide the best possible service to the American public. An Office of
Good Jobs would achieve that. Abandon the days when the U.S. Government
was the leading funder of low-wage jobs. After all, Mr. Chair, when you
and I and all of the other taxpayers have to fund low-wage workers with
section 8 and food stamps, that comes out of our pockets. Make these
folks pay their workers right. Let's set up an Office of Good Jobs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment, basically, is duplicative and
ignores the existing responsible contractor award system that is
already in place. Contracting officers must already consult the System
for Award Management to ensure a contractor can be awarded a contract.
Businesses on the Excluded Parties List System have been suspended or
debarred through a due process system and may not be eligible to
receive or renew contracts for such cited offenses.
The best way to ensure the government contracts or provides grants to
the best employers is to enforce the existing suspension and debarment
system. Bad actors who are in violation of basic worker protections
should not be awarded Federal contracts. We all agree with that. That
is why the Federal Government already has a system in place to deny
Federal contracts to bad actors. If a contractor fails to maintain high
standards of integrity and business ethics, agencies already have the
authority to suspend or debar the employer from government contracting.
In 2014, Federal agencies issued more than 1,000 suspensions and nearly
2,000 debarments to employers who bid on Federal contracts.
The amendment will delay the procurement process with harmful
consequences to our Nation's nuclear safety and security. On numerous
occasions, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has
highlighted costly litigation stemming from the complex regulatory
rules, including from the Fair Labor Standards Act. This amendment
punishes employers who may unknowingly or unwillingly get caught in the
Federal Government's maze of bureaucratic rules and reporting
requirements.
The procurement process is already plagued by delays and
inefficiencies.

[[Page H3081]]

This amendment will make these problems worse for the Department of
Energy--the second largest contracting agency outside of the Department
of Defense--further delaying critical support for national nuclear
security operations.
This amendment will work against those who are working hard to
protect the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers
assets, which is inconceivable given the safety needs of our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, let's have an Office of Good Jobs that makes
sure that the Federal Government leads the example in creating good
jobs, not encourages a race to the bottom as we are doing now. This is
a good amendment, and if we want to restore the American middle class,
all Members should vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chair, it is intended that the appropriation for Departmental
Administration be used to establish an Office of Good Jobs in the
Department aimed at ensuring that the Department's procurement, grant-
making, and regulatory decisions encourage the creation of decently
paid jobs, collective bargaining rights, and responsible employment
practices. The office's structure shall be substantially similar to the
Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships located within
the Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and
Human Services, Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Commerce, Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Department
of State, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection
Agency, Corporation for National and Community Service, and U.S. Agency
for International Development.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Inspector General

For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, $44,424,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2018.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Weapons Activities

(including rescission of funds)

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $9,285,147,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount, $97,118,000 shall be available until September 30,
2018, for program direction: Provided further, That of the
unobligated balances from prior year appropriations available
under this heading, $42,000,000 is hereby rescinded: Provided
further, That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that
were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

(including rescission of funds)

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,821,916,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
provided by this Act for Project 99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility, and by prior Acts that remain
unobligated for such Project, may be made available only for
construction and program support activities for such Project:
Provided further, That of the unobligated balances from prior
year appropriations available under this heading, $14,000,000
is hereby rescinded: Provided further, That no amounts may be
rescinded from amounts that were designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to a concurrent
resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Langevin

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

Page 53, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 54, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from Rhode Island and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment with my good friend
and colleague, Congressman Larsen of Washington, to support the
continued assessment of the feasibility of using low-enriched uranium,
or LEU, in naval reactor fuel that would meet military requirements for
aircraft carriers and submarines.
Using low-enriched uranium in naval reactor fuel brings significant
national security benefits related to nuclear nonproliferation; it
could lower security costs and support naval reactor research and
development at the cutting edge of nuclear science.
As we continue to face the threat of nuclear terrorism and as
countries continue to develop naval fuel for military purposes, the
imperative to reduce the use of highly enriched uranium, or HEU, will
become increasingly important over the next several decades.
Using LEU for naval reactors is not an impossible task. France's
nuclear navy already has converted from HEU to LEU fuel. We must
evaluate the feasibility for the U.S. Navy as well and take into
account the potential benefits to U.S. and international security of
setting a norm for using LEU instead of nuclear bomb-grade material.
Furthermore, the U.S. Navy will eventually exhaust its supply of highly
enriched uranium.
Unless an alternative to using low-enriched uranium fuel is developed
in the coming decades, the United States would have to resume its
production of bomb-grade uranium for the first time since 1992,
ultimately undermining U.S. nonproliferation efforts.
Last year, on a bipartisan basis, Congress authorized and
appropriated first-year funding in FY16 for naval LEU fuel R&D.
Already, this year, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate
Appropriations Committee have again supported LEU R&D efforts. It is
now critical that the full House provide funding for this critical
research that is paramount to our national security interests. This $5
million in funding would support the early testing and manufacturing
development that is required to advance the LEU technology for use in
naval fuel, yielding significant benefits for nuclear nonproliferation
as well as security cost savings.
The time has come to invest in new technologies to address this
threat and to reduce the reliance on highly enriched uranium. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment, and I hope that the majority will
join with me in supporting this.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I must insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SIMPSON. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not
yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in
the bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

[[Page H3082]]

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Langevin

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

Page 53, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 54, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Rhode Island and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, now that the technical correction was made
to the amendment, my argument stands as to the previous amendment.
As I said, the goal of the amendment is to allow R&D to take place
using LEU, low-enriched uranium, for naval reactor fuel that would meet
military requirements for aircraft carriers and submarines. As I said,
this is already done by France in their nuclear navy, which has already
converted from using HEU to LEU fuel. This is a much more secure and
stable fuel than using HEU.
Again, the Navy will exhaust its fuel at some point in the coming
decades, and unless we have an alternative fuel that would power our
nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, we would have to
start producing weapons-grade uranium, once again, for fuel in powering
our aircraft carriers and submarines. By switching over to LEU, it
would, ultimately, reduce costs, be more secure, and provide a long-
term fuel for powering our Navy. This is a commonsense approach, as I
said with regard to the previous amendment before the technical
correction was made.
Last year, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, authorized and
appropriated first-year funding for FY16 for Navy LEU fuel in R&D.
Already, this year, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate
Appropriations Committee have again supported LEU R&D efforts.
I believe now the time is critical that the full House provide
funding for this critical research that is paramount to our national
security interests. It supports R&D, and it gives our Navy options for
powering our nuclear carriers and submarines.
I would ask that my colleagues support the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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

Page 53, lines 11 through 16, strike ``Provided'' through
``Provided further'' and insert ``Provided''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just heard the most interesting discussion a few moments ago about
highly enriched uranium. In fact, we are in the process of spending
several billions of dollars in rebuilding our highly enriched uranium
facility so that we can produce more nuclear weapons.
The subject of this amendment is about old nuclear weapons. We have
some 30-plus metric tons of unused plutonium that is sitting in various
storage facilities around the United States. We have designed, in an
agreement with Russia, to dispose of about 30 metric tons of that
plutonium, and Russia has agreed to dispose of a little bit more than
we are going to dispose of. This was all supposed to be done at the
Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility in South Carolina, at the Savannah River
facility.

{time} 2100

It is going to cost about a billion dollars back in 2001. The
estimate in 2014 was $7.7 billion. And in 2015, the estimate is some
$30 billion, and most people say it isn't going to work.
So we have sinkholes for money, and we have black holes for money.
And this is the ultimate black hole into which perhaps $30 billion will
be spent. And, at the end of the day, it will probably create more
problems and not solve the problem of the 30-or-so metric tons of
plutonium that actually came out of various bombs that have been
dismantled over the last several years.
So why are we continuing?
In the appropriation bill, it calls for $340 million to be spent on
construction of a facility that the Department of Energy says shouldn't
be built. But, hey, we are the Congress and we can throw around $340
million with great aplomb and not even worry about it.
So this is a very simple amendment. It doesn't save us the $340
million, which is what we really ought to do. What this amendment
really does is say: don't spend it on further constructing this
useless--well, not useless--but totally expensive facility, the MOX
facility. Don't waste the money on this boondoggle.
And we can spend the money on maybe what the Department of Energy
thinks we ought to do, which is to dilute and dispose or maybe we could
build a fast reactor, which we actually have built in the past and
which Russia is actually using to dispose of its plutonium. They are
generating energy in doing so while disposing of their unused
plutonium.
So why don't we just accept this amendment and eliminate the
construction clause? Keep the $340 million in South Carolina so that
they could be happy and maybe they could spend it on something that
might actually work.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Mike
Simpson for his leadership.
I rise today in opposition to the amendment and in support of the
mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, or the MOX project, which is
located at the Savannah River site in Aiken and Barnwell, South
Carolina, adjacent to Augusta, Georgia.
I support the facility for a very simple reason. It is the only
viable method of permanently disposing of weapons-grade plutonium and
turning it into green fuel for nuclear reactors.
Furthermore, it is the only means of upholding our nuclear
nonproliferation agreement with the Russian Federation. I say so with
the background of myself having served as the Deputy General Counsel of
the Department of Energy and the only person currently serving in
Congress who has ever worked at the Savannah River site.
The citizens of South Carolina accepted nuclear waste under the
pledge by the Department of Energy that there would be a facility to
process and remove the plutonium. After years of empty promises, the
actions by this administration to close MOX with no viable alternative
makes South Carolina a repository for nuclear waste, putting the people
of South Carolina and Georgia at risk.
The facility is nearly 70 percent completed. There has been a
shortsighted decision to terminate the MOX project without appropriate
considerations. The administration has failed to complete a
rebaselining of the MOX project, as required by law.
The administration has failed to consult key partners, including the
EPA or the State of New Mexico as a receiving location. The
administration cannot definitely state that the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant has the capacity for 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium or even
if it will reopen.
The administration has failed to communicate with Russia about the
plan to close MOX, causing Vladimir Putin to not attend the recent
nuclear summit in Washington. Putin himself stated:
``This is not what we agreed on.
``But serious issues, especially with regard to nuclear arms, are
quite a different matter and one should be able to meet one's
obligations.''

[[Page H3083]]

MOX is a proven technology. It has worked overseas. It is crucial for
our national security, and any decision to halt or alter its mission
should only be carried out after a thorough and careful evaluation.
I urge my colleagues to support MOX, to stand up for our national
security initiatives, to support the only viable alternative for
plutonium disposition, and to reject the amendment.
I am grateful that today the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has issued a
letter in support of MOX:
``The Chamber opposes any efforts to reduce funding for National
Nuclear Security Administration's mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel facility at
the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site. This project is
critical to honoring the United States' Plutonium Disposition Protocol
and the advancement of domestic nuclear fuel production.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, with great respect for my friend from South
Carolina, who is a most able advocate for his neighborhood, the MOX
facility is the ultimate sinkhole for Federal dollars.
In fact, there is a viable alternative, and there are quite possibly
two different viable alternatives. One is the Russian fast reactor. We
have our own fast reactor. It clearly is disposing of the plutonium
stockpile in Russia and creating energy along the way that they are
using. We also have our own fast reactor systems that have been built
in the past, and they could be viable and could be located at the
Savannah River facility to dispose of the plutonium.

We are going to need to come to some conclusion here. This is a
debate that we really must have. The Senate has two different versions,
and the House has two different versions about what to do. Maybe the
gentleman and I could wrestle and we could decide which one is the
version we would actually take on here.
This does not stop the facility. It simply says to stop construction,
use the money to look at designs, use the money to look for ongoing
solutions, which the gentleman, I believe, is incorrect. But if he is
right, it could be the MOX facility.
But we need to solve this problem. It is a very, very serious
problem. We are required by a treaty with Russia to dispose of our
unused plutonium, which is another amendment that I will take up at the
end of the day, but I will talk about that much later tonight.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, usually Congressman
Garamendi and I agree on issues like small monitor reactors.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, this debate has been going on for a while. I
appreciate what the gentleman is saying.
I have been having this debate with the Secretary of Energy for some
time. I understand where the people from South Carolina are coming
from. We are talking about jobs and we are talking about the economy.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but what I do have is
responsibility as chairman of this committee. Five years from now, we
are not sitting up here talking about the same thing, another chairman
and another Secretary of Energy and another President.
The Department of Energy is famous for starting programs and getting
halfway down and then spending billions of dollars and then walking
away from them. Yucca Mountain is the biggest hole in the ground--they
spent $14 billion to build--than anything I have ever seen. And it is
not the only thing that the Department of Energy has done.
But they come to us now and say: Hey, we have a plan and it is going
to be cheaper. We think that MOX is going to cost $30 billion. Other
people say: Nah, that is a stretch. We are looking more like 20 or
something like that.
Nobody can get the numbers right, so we ask them to rebaseline it.
They haven't done that. But they come to us and say: We have a plan. We
think that what we ought to do is just dilute this stuff and then
dispose of it.
Okay. Great. What is that going to take?
Well, first of all, we have a treaty with Russia.
Have the Russians agreed to this?
Well, no, but we think they will.
Well, you know, there are a lot of things I think that my wife will
agree to that she doesn't in the long run.
So we are going to go out and we are going to stop construction of
this on the hope that the Russians are going to agree with us. Of
course, we have such a good relationship going on with them right now.
But the Department says: Oh, I think they will be okay, and they have
indicated they are willing to talk.
Okay. We are going to dispose of it.
Where are we going to dispose of it? WIPP?
WIPP is shut down right now, but we are going to get WIPP reopened.
Is that where we are going to put it? Is WIPP large enough to hold
this? Are we going to have to do another land withdrawal in New Mexico?
Is the State of New Mexico okay with this?
Well, we don't know. We haven't talked to them yet.
So what you want to do is stop this before you have a plan of what
you want to do with it, and that is just crazy. And that is my problem.
If the Department would come to us and say that the Russians have
agreed to amend the treaty, and New Mexico has agreed that they will
take the stuff, then maybe we could have a serious discussion. But
right now, it is just all pie in the sky.
I will tell you that if you really don't care about the treaty and
you really don't care about where they dispose of it--dispose of it in
New Mexico--the cheapest thing to do is just store it, but nobody wants
to do that.
So all we are saying is let's be reasonable on this and let's
recognize that you have a facility here that is 67 percent complete. I
think we ought to go down the same road. Although there are others, I
have to admit, that look at $340 million--and probably it will be $500
million when it gets going as we continue, as construction ramps up--
but look at that as: Oh, that is taking money out of my programs in my
town, and I don't want that to happen. So let's stop MOX, and that
means my favorite project will get more money.
I know there is a lot of that going on, too. So I understand where
the gentleman is coming from. There are other people that agree with
him.
There are people on my side of the aisle that come up and ask why are
we spending money on that boondoggle?
It is not a boondoggle. The fact is it is supposed to create MOX
fuel.
While the Department says there are no energy companies that want the
MOX fuel, that is not true. There are some who would sign long-term
agreements. The problem is they see this debate and are wondering
whether we are going to have any or not. But the problem is the
Department won't come to us with a solid proposal that we can rely on
that is an alternative that we could weigh one against the other.
I don't want 5 years or 10 years from now a chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies at
that time and a Secretary of Energy to be down on the street corner
arguing about: Well, gee, we stopped MOX. We got that big cement pile
out there. We stopped construction on that. We have a problem with New
Mexico, and the Russians are on our back. They won't do anything about
the treaty. What are we going to do? Let's think of something else.
So until somebody has a reasonable alternative that they could
compare it to and the cost to, we need to continue with this MOX
project. And that is why the funding is in there for this bill and that
is why we will fight for it in conference, even though the Senate, I
know, wants to stop it and do other things.
So, anyway, that is why that is there. I appreciate what the
gentleman is doing. I understand his concerns. Other people have those
concerns, but the right path for us to follow is to continue the
project that currently exists.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H3084]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I have great respect for Congressman
Garamendi. I know how thoughtful he is, and normally I do support his
efforts.
I have to say that, in this instance, I think the priority has to be
on completing construction of MOX. I think there was a reference made
tonight that 67 percent of the construction is already completed. 90
percent of the equipment has been procured. 50 percent of the equipment
is onsite. 1,800 people are directly employed. 4,000 American
contractors and suppliers are being utilized in 43 States. And MOX is
the only proven pathway we have for disposing of the 34 metric tons of
U.S. weapons-grade plutonium in a pragmatic way.
I have to say that one of my goals in supporting this effort--having
worked now with the Department of Energy on a number of programs, my
goodness, it seems never to be able to finish anything. So we talk
about Yucca Mountain--the chairman of the subcommittee made significant
reference to that--billions of dollars and a hole sits in the ground
unused.
Back when Jimmy Carter was President, he had a goal of putting solar
panels on the Department of Energy. It didn't happen until recently. I
mean, it has been three decades, four decades, before they could even
finish something like that.

{time} 2115

We look at Hanford and the cleanup that is necessary there. I mean,
how many more centuries is it going to take? The one thing we can say
about MOX, yes, it is treaty required and we are trying to meet our
treaty obligations, but it is moving toward completion.
I mean, this is a miracle for the Department of Energy. Perhaps fast
reactor might be better. But how do we know it won't cost an equal
amount or more? We know South Carolina wants this. The Congressman from
the region is here.
If we talk about WIPP, how do we know they even want the material? We
have all these problems like Yucca Mountain. We have material we want
to bury in the ground, and then the people say in the State that you
build the facility: Well, now we don't want it.
So, frankly, of all the subcommittees I have served on or full
committee--I have served on a majority of them--I have never seen a
department that can't get its act together and get the work done.
So as much as I respect you, Congressman Garamendi, and you are right
on so many efforts, I think to stop this project now with more than
two-thirds of it constructed and hundreds of contracts let with vendors
in 43 States--canceling those would expose our government to major
liability and court costs from lawsuits and so forth.
The House bill prioritizes funds for national security to allow the
United States to uphold its worthy nonproliferation and disarmament
goals, which we share, and focuses on completing the MOX facility at
the Savannah River site in the most cost-effective manner that the
Department is capable of doing. I really think that we need to get it
done. We are close to doing that.
We don't need another disaster sitting out there that is unused or
this delay and stop and delay and hesitation and uncertainty and so
forth. We need to complete this. We need to take care of the spent
plutonium in a very responsible manner.
I share the chairman's perspective on this and continue to hold the
author of the amendment--Congressman Garamendi--in the highest regard.
I share your desire for nonproliferation. I think one of the best
things we can do is get this material processed and leave the world a
safer place in our time and generation.
I do oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The MOX facility at the Savannah River Site is absolutely crucial to
our environmental clean-up missions, which produces green fuel, and
national security.
The MOX facility is already over 70% completed, and is the best way
to uphold the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, our
nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Russia.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant facility has been absolutely riddled
with problems and shutdowns in recent years.
Not only would we be unable to fulfill our international obligations,
but eliminating the MOX facility would make the Savannah River Site a
de facto permanent repository for nuclear waste.
This is absurd--we need to deposit our nuclear waste at a
geographically stable site in a largely uninhabited area. We have
already identified the best location for permanent storage--Yucca
Mountain in Nevada.
Until we restart the process for storing our nuclear waste at the
Yucca Mountain site, it would be incredibly irresponsible to allow the
nuclear waste to build up at a less safe and less stable site when we
could be processing this material at the MOX facility and convert our
plutonium into fuel that can be used at our commercial nuclear
reactors.
Unfortunately, this amendment to eliminate funding to the MOX
facility is counterproductive and short-sighted.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Naval Reactors

For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval
reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or
otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment,
facilities, and facility expansion, $1,420,120,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of such amount,
$44,100,000 shall be available until September 30, 2018, for
program direction.

Federal Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for Federal Salaries and Expenses in
the National Nuclear Security Administration, $382,387,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2018, including
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$12,000.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

Page 54, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 56, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the $500,000 in funds will be for sites
where remediation is currently being conducted by the Office of Legacy
Management at DOE in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, called CERCLA--these are
called CERCLA sites--and/or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
RCRA.
So it is CERCLA sites and RCRA sites. There are eight of them in
seven different States. There are two in Ohio, one in California, one
in Kentucky, one in Utah, one in Florida, one in Colorado, and one in
Mississippi.
In Colorado, Rocky Flats, which is a now-shuttered nuclear weapons
plant, has oversight by DOE. They do some water testing, but downwind
and downstream communities have concerns about potential contamination.
These funds will help complete testing, which is vital for scientific
knowledge, for public confidence, and for public health. We need them
as we move forward with various uses of the land and properties in the
area, including, in the case of Rocky Flats, opening to extensive
public visitation.
Several municipalities and communities in my district have voted to
ask for more soil samples. The portion they have asked for this
regarding is both on Fish and Wildlife- and DOE-managed areas.
I personally have heard from many scientists, residents, even
somebody who investigated the former Rocky Flats plant 30 years ago,
who feel that it is very important that we make sure that the
downstream areas and the site are not still contaminated and not
hazardous for human visitors.
We need to have the proper science by testing the air, water and
soil, relatively low-cost propositions that

[[Page H3085]]

would be funded by this small change from administrative accounts.
These funds, to be clear, would be applied to all CERCLA lands, such as
Rocky Flats and the others.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I am very grateful to work with the
committee and their staff on this important testing for CERCLA and RCRA
lands like those at Rocky Flats and in the other seven States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Defense Environmental Cleanup

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any
real property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of
not to exceed one fire apparatus pumper truck, one aerial
lift truck, one refuse truck, and one semi-truck for
replacement only, $5,226,950,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of such amount, $290,050,000 shall
be available until September 30, 2018, for program direction:
Provided further, That of such amount, $26,800,000 shall be
available for the purpose of a payment by the Secretary of
Energy to the State of New Mexico for road improvements in
accordance with section 15(b) of the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant Land Withdrawal Act (Public Law 102-579): Provided
further, That the amount made available by the previous
proviso shall be separate from any appropriations of funds
for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Other Defense Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense,
other defense activities, and classified activities, in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, $776,425,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of such amount, $254,230,000 shall
be available until September 30, 2018, for program direction.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Bonneville Power Administration Fund

Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $5,000: Provided, That during fiscal year 2017,
no new direct loan obligations may be made.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

For expenses necessary for operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and for marketing electric
power and energy, including transmission wheeling and
ancillary services, pursuant to section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southeastern power area, $1,000,000, including official
reception and representation expenses in an amount not to
exceed $1,500, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944, up to $1,000,000 collected by the
Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of power and
related services shall be credited to this account as
discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual
expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses
shall be reduced as collections are received during the
fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2017
appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided
further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$60,760,000 collected by the Southeastern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

For expenses necessary for operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and for marketing electric
power and energy, for construction and acquisition of
transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities,
and for administrative expenses, including official reception
and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500
in carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944
(16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power
Administration, $45,643,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s),
up to $34,586,000 collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2017 appropriation estimated at
not more than $11,057,000: Provided further, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $73,000,000 collected
by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant to the
Flood Control Act of 1944 to recover purchase power and
wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections, to remain available until expended
for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures: Provided further, That for purposes of this
appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are
generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred
(excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).

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

For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, $307,144,000,
including official reception and representation expenses in
an amount not to exceed $1,500, to remain available until
expended, of which $299,742,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the
Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a),
up to $211,563,000 collected by the Western Area Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2017 appropriation estimated at
not more than $95,581,000, of which $88,179,000 is derived
from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $367,009,000 collected
by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant to the
Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project Act of
1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$4,070,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255):
Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of that Act and
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $3,838,000 collected by the Western
Area Power Administration from the sale of power and related
services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall be credited
to this account as discretionary offsetting collections, to
remain available until expended for the sole purpose of
funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities
of these Dams and associated Western Area Power
Administration activities: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2017 appropriation estimated at
not more than $232,000: Provided further, That for purposes
of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures
that are generally recovered in the same year that they are
incurred: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2017, the
Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration may
accept up to $323,000 in funds contributed by United States
power customers of the Falcon and Amistad Dams for deposit
into the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund,
and such funds shall be available for the purpose for which
contributed in like manner as if said sums had been
specifically appropriated for such purpose: Provided further,
That any such funds shall be available without further
appropriation and without fiscal year limitation for use by
the Commissioner of the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission for the sole
purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating,
replacing,

[[Page H3086]]

or upgrading the hydroelectric facilities at these Dams in
accordance with agreements reached between the Administrator,
Commissioner, and the power customers.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, official reception
and representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, and the
hire of passenger motor vehicles, $346,800,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, not to exceed $346,800,000 of
revenues from fees and annual charges, and other services and
collections in fiscal year 2017 shall be retained and used
for expenses necessary in this account, and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as
revenues are received during fiscal year 2017 so as to result
in a final fiscal year 2017 appropriation from the general
fund estimated at not more than $0.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

(including transfer and rescission of funds)

Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made
available by this title for the Department of Energy shall be
used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity
or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar
arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for
Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a
program, project, or activity if the program, project, or
activity has not been funded by Congress.
(b)(1) Unless the Secretary of Energy notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress at
least 3 full business days in advance, none of the funds made
available in this title may be used to--
(A) make a grant allocation or discretionary grant award
totaling $1,000,000 or more;
(B) make a discretionary contract award or Other
Transaction Agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more, including
a contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
(C) issue a letter of intent to make an allocation, award,
or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph (A) or
(B); or
(D) announce publicly the intention to make an allocation,
award, or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph
(A) or (B).
(2) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 15 days
of the conclusion of each quarter a report detailing each
grant allocation or discretionary grant award totaling less
than $1,000,000 provided during the previous quarter.
(3) The notification required by paragraph (1) and the
report required by paragraph (2) shall include the recipient
of the award, the amount of the award, the fiscal year for
which the funds for the award were appropriated, the account
and program, project, or activity from which the funds are
being drawn, the title of the award, and a brief description
of the activity for which the award is made.
(c) The Department of Energy may not, with respect to any
program, project, or activity that uses budget authority made
available in this title under the heading ``Department of
Energy--Energy Programs'', enter into a multiyear contract,
award a multiyear grant, or enter into a multiyear
cooperative agreement unless--
(1) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is funded
for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time
of award; or
(2) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement includes
a clause conditioning the Federal Government's obligation on
the availability of future year budget authority and the
Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress at least 3 days in advance.
(d) Except as provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g),
the amounts made available by this title shall be expended as
authorized by law for the programs, projects, and activities
specified in the ``Bill'' column in the ``Department of
Energy'' table included under the heading ``Title III--
Department of Energy'' in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations accompanying this Act.
(e) The amounts made available by this title may be
reprogrammed for any program, project, or activity, and the
Department shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress at least 30 days prior to the use of
any proposed reprogramming that would cause any program,
project, or activity funding level to increase or decrease by
more than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, during
the time period covered by this Act.
(f) None of the funds provided in this title shall be
available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates, initiates, or eliminates a program, project,
or activity;
(2) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act; or
(3) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
(g)(1) The Secretary of Energy may waive any requirement or
restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds
made available for the Department of Energy if compliance
with such requirement or restriction would pose a substantial
risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national
security.
(2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of any waiver under
paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but not later than 3
days after the date of the activity to which a requirement or
restriction would otherwise have applied. Such notice shall
include an explanation of the substantial risk under
paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver.
Sec. 302. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be available to the
same appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with
funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter
may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as
originally enacted.
Sec. 303. Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or
made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3094) during fiscal
year 2017 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017.
Sec. 304. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for the construction of facilities classified
as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830
unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of
Enterprise Assessments to ensure the project is in compliance
with nuclear safety requirements.
Sec. 305. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical
decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any
successive departmental guidance, for construction projects
where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a
separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the
project for that critical decision.
Sec. 306. (a) None of the funds made available in this or
any prior Act under the heading ``Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation'' may be made available to enter into new
contracts with, or new agreements for Federal assistance to,
the Russian Federation.
(b) The Secretary of Energy may waive the prohibition in
subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that such activity
is in the national security interests of the United States.
This waiver authority may not be delegated.
(c) A waiver under subsection (b) shall not be effective
until 15 days after the date on which the Secretary submits
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress, in classified form if necessary, a report on the
justification for the waiver.
Sec. 307. (a) New Regional Reserves.--The Secretary of
Energy may not establish any new regional petroleum product
reserve unless funding for the proposed regional petroleum
product reserve is explicitly requested in advance in an
annual budget submission and approved by the Congress in an
appropriations Act.
(b) The budget request or notification shall include--
(1) the justification for the new reserve;
(2) a cost estimate for the establishment, operation, and
maintenance of the reserve, including funding sources;
(3) a detailed plan for operation of the reserve, including
the conditions upon which the products may be released;
(4) the location of the reserve; and
(5) the estimate of the total inventory of the reserve.
Sec. 308. (a) Any unobligated balances available from
amounts appropriated in prior fiscal years for the following
accounts that were apportioned in Category C (as defined in
section 120 of Office of Management and Budget Circular No A-
11), are hereby rescinded in the specified amounts:
(1)``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear
Security Administration--Weapons Activities'', $64,126,393.
(2) ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear
Security Administration--Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'',
$19,127,803.
(3) ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear
Security Administration--Naval Reactors'', $307,262.
(b) No amounts may be rescinded under subsection (a) from
amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985.
Sec. 309. Not to exceed $2,000,000, in aggregate, of the
amounts made available by this title may be made available
for project engineering and design of the Consolidated
Emergency Operations Center.

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965,
notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, and for expenses necessary
for the Federal Co-Chairman and the Alternate on the
Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment of the Federal
share of the administrative expenses of the Commission,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire
of passenger motor vehicles, $146,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

[[Page H3087]]

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $31,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2018.

Delta Regional Authority

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Delta Regional Authority and
to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections
382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, $15,000,000,
to remain available until expended.

Denali Commission

For expenses necessary for the Denali Commission including
the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment as necessary and other expenses,
$11,000,000, to remain available until expended,
notwithstanding the limitations contained in section 306(g)
of the Denali Commission Act of 1998: Provided, That funds
shall be available for construction projects in an amount not
to exceed 80 percent of total project cost for distressed
communities, as defined by section 307 of the Denali
Commission Act of 1998 (division C, title III, Public Law
105-277), as amended by section 701 of appendix D, title VII,
Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-280), and an amount not
to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.

Northern Border Regional Commission

For expenses necessary for the Northern Border Regional
Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle
V of title 40, United States Code, $5,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall
be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding
section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, $936,121,000, including official
representation expenses not to exceed $25,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be
derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That of the
amount appropriated herein, not more than $7,500,000 may be
made available for salaries, travel, and other support costs
for the Office of the Commission, to remain available until
September 30, 2018, of which, notwithstanding section
201(a)(2)(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5841(a)(2)(c)), the use and expenditure shall only be
approved by a majority vote of the Commission: Provided
further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$786,853,000 in fiscal year 2017 shall be retained and used
for necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That of the amounts
appropriated under this heading, not less than $5,000,000
shall be for activities related to the development of
regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear technologies,
and $18,000,000 shall be for international activities, except
that the amounts provided under this proviso shall not be
derived from fee revenues, notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 2214:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year
2017 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2017
appropriation estimated at not more than $149,268,000:
Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated under this
heading, $10,000,000 shall be for university research and
development in areas relevant to the Commission's mission,
and $5,000,000 shall be for a Nuclear Science and Engineering
Grant Program that will support multiyear projects that do
not align with programmatic missions but are critical to
maintaining the discipline of nuclear science and
engineering.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Keating

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

Page 72, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment with
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a champion of these issues.
Our amendment is simple and straightforward. It seeks to provide
adequate resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to
ensure the safe and effective decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
Last year Entergy Corporation, the owner and operator of the Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts, after facing severe
losses in revenue and plagued by serious safety concerns, announced
that the plant would be decommissioned by 2019.
Since coming to Congress, I have been concerned about the safety of
Pilgrim's day-to-day operations as well as the security of its spent
fuel storage.
Following Entergy's announcement, I have worked with State and local
representatives from southeastern Massachusetts to prioritize the
safety of the decommissioning process, security of the plant's spent
fuel, and displacement of over 600 workers employed at this site.
Just this week, attention has focused on the NRC's recent report that
revealed that the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station came up short yet again
during an investigation of their follow-through on critical systems
maintenance.
While this infraction ultimately falls on the responsibility of
Entergy, it is equally important that the NRC has the necessary
resources to address concerns as they arise, including through
cooperation with local communities.
As we have often cited, decommissioning of nuclear power plants has
an enormous economic and financial impact on host communities. We have
urged that decommissioning funds be used strictly for removal of spent
fuel from wet storage to dry cask storage, restoration and remediation
of the site, and maintenance of emergency preparedness and security
resources throughout the entire process.
Finally, it is my hope that the NRC prioritizes workforce development
opportunities. As the number of decommissioned plants increases, so,
too, will thousands of high-skilled, well-paying jobs.
I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this amendment and
urge their support.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. We have a lot of
merchant nuclear plants that are now starting to get decommissioned.
The first one that got decommissioned was in Vernon, Vermont. We have
now got Pilgrim.
The communities there face enormous challenges. One, we lose a lot of
good jobs. Number two, there is the question: How do you get that asset
back in production? That is where the local community, like select
boards, citizen groups, are enormously concerned, and rightly so. It is
their community, and they want to get it back operational.
The purpose of this amendment is to try to get the NRC the resources
it needs and, also, the process it needs for citizen community
involvement to be accepted. They are in a new era.
Generally, the NRC has been about regulating the safety of the plant.
Now we are moving into the era where they have to deal with the
decommissioning of the plant.
Safety issues continue to be of paramount concern, but economic
vitality in the future is an urgent concern. Our goal here is to make
certain that those folks who are in the community and their elected
representatives have the capacity for significant input.

{time} 2130

We are very pleased that the NRC is starting a rulemaking process to
try to open it up a bit. We want to encourage them to do so. This
legislation is a big step towards that.
Mr. KEATING. I also want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member
Kaptur for their consideration of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $12,129,000, to remain available until September 30,
2018: Provided, That revenues from

[[Page H3088]]

licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and
collections estimated at $10,044,000 in fiscal year 2017
shall be retained and be available until September 30, 2018,
for necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year
2017 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2017
appropriation estimated at not more than $2,085,000: Provided
further, That of the amounts appropriated under this heading,
$969,000 shall be for Inspector General services for the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, which shall not be
available from fee revenues.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $3,600,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2018.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Sec. 401. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall comply
with the July 5, 2011, version of Chapter VI of its Internal
Commission Procedures when responding to Congressional
requests for information.
Sec. 402. (a) The amounts made available by this title for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be reprogrammed for any
program, project, or activity, and the Commission shall
notify the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress at least 30 days prior to the use of any proposed
reprogramming that would cause any program funding level to
increase or decrease by more than $500,000 or 10 percent,
whichever is less, during the time period covered by this
Act.
(b)(1) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may waive the
notification requirement in subsection (a) if compliance with
such requirement would pose a substantial risk to human
health, the environment, welfare, or national security.
(2) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall notify the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of
any waiver under paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but
not later than 3 days after the date of the activity to which
a requirement or restriction would otherwise have applied.
Such notice shall include an explanation of the substantial
risk under paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver and shall
provide a detailed report to the Committees of such waiver
and changes to funding levels to programs, projects, or
activities.
(c) Except as provided in subsections (a), (b), and (d),
the amounts made available by this title for ``Nuclear
Regulatory Commission--Salaries and Expenses'' shall be
expended as directed in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations accompanying this Act.
(d) None of the funds provided for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission shall be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds that increases funds or
personnel for any program, project, or activity for which
funds are denied or restricted by this Act.
(e) The Commission shall provide a monthly report to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress,
which includes the following for each program, project, or
activity, including any prior year appropriations--
(1) total budget authority;
(2) total unobligated balances; and
(3) total unliquidated obligations.

TITLE V

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
Sec. 502. (a) None of the funds made available in title III
of this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government, except
pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided
in this Act or any other appropriations Act for any fiscal
year, transfer authority referenced in the report of the
Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, or any
authority whereby a department, agency, or instrumentality of
the United States Government may provide goods or services to
another department, agency, or instrumentality.
(b) None of the funds made available for any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government
may be transferred to accounts funded in title III of this
Act, except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer
authority provided in this Act or any other appropriations
Act for any fiscal year, transfer authority referenced in the
report of the Committee on Appropriations accompanying this
Act, or any authority whereby a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another department, agency, or
instrumentality.
(c) The head of any relevant department or agency funded in
this Act utilizing any transfer authority shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
semiannual report detailing the transfer authorities, except
for any authority whereby a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another department, agency, or
instrumentality, used in the previous 6 months and in the
year-to-date. This report shall include the amounts
transferred and the purposes for which they were transferred,
and shall not replace or modify existing notification
requirements for each authority.
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of
February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations).
Sec. 504. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to maintain or establish a computer network
unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and
exchanging of pornography.
(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds
necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law
enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal
investigations, prosecution, or adjudication activities.
Sec. 505. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to conduct closure of adjudicatory functions,
technical review, or support activities associated with Yucca
Mountain geologic repository license application, or for
actions that irrevocably remove the possibility that Yucca
Mountain may be a repository option in the future.
Sec. 506. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to further implementation of the coastal and marine
spatial planning and ecosystem-based management components of
the National Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order No.
13547 of July 19, 2010.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Farr

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

Page 79, beginning on line 24, strike section 506.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I rise once again because every year we face
this amendment and it does get knocked out in conference. But I rise
with concern that it keeps coming back, because I think it is based on
a lot of misunderstanding, and it really can cause serious problems.
For many years, Congress has been struggling with all these sorts of
conflicts at the sea. Different Federal entities have different
responsibilities--some for mineral management, some for fishing, some
for coastal zone protection, Coast Guard for buoys. And when we were in
the State legislature, State after State complained that there was a
conflict of seas.
Congress actually appointed a commission to review these, a
bipartisan commission. The membership was appointed by President Bush.
The commission came back with an oceans report indicating that we had
to avoid these conflicts among agencies. What we would do is create a
National Ocean Policy, which required all the Federal agencies to look
at their responsibilities and to make sure that they were all
coordinated so that they carry out the functions that they have been
responsible for, but carry them out in a timely fashion.
What this language in this bill says is you can't carry out these
responsibilities under the National Ocean Policy. It is really stupid
to knock it out, because what it will do is cost the people who want
permits from the Federal Government a lot more time and money. And in
fact, what it really does is jeopardize our national security because,
believe it or not, one of the ways that people are sneaking into our
exclusive economic zone is through fishing boats. And fishing boats are
the responsibility more of National Marine Fisheries and the Coast
Guard, and they have to be able to communicate with each other on
issues.
So it is just one thing after another. I am really saying let's knock
this language out.
The other thing I would like to say is that I hate to make this thing
partisan, but I was just at a huge Oceans conference in Monterey, in
the district I represent, with a lot of national scientists and NGOs.
The one thing that they pointed out time after time is how the
Republicans are just attacking issues on the oceans, on marine
fisheries, on oil and gas development, and so on.
And a policy like this is not something that is not actually
beneficial to

[[Page H3089]]

try to get bureaucracy to work in knocking it out so that it goes back
to the old bureaucracy. It is harmful for the government, it is harmful
for users of ocean resources, and it is more harmful for people that
are trying to get a handle on what is killing our oceans and killing
our fish.
So we spend absolutely no money on oceans planning. The National
Ocean Policy does not supersede any local or State regulations or
create any new Federal regulations. It just creates a mechanism by
which 41 numerous ocean agencies, departments, working groups, and
committees can coordinate and communicate to manage effectively. It is
a bottom-up, not top-down project.
National Ocean Policy leverages taxpayer dollars by reducing
duplication between Federal, State, and local agencies, by streamlining
data collection, by strengthening public involvement, by actually
resulting in better decisionmaking and more decisionmaking, less costly
decisionmaking.
National Ocean Policy is a tool for planning, not a mandate to strip
local and stakeholder control from our oceans' resource. It was
supported by President Bush. It has been supported by President Obama.
It is bipartisan, bicameral, bi-everything, and this language just
makes it impossible to carry on the responsibilities that we have in
using our natural resources in a responsible fashion.
I ask that the amendment be adopted.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
While there may be instances in which the greater coordination would
be helpful to ensure our ocean and coastal resources are available to
future generations, any such coordination must be done carefully to
protect against Federal overreach.
As we have seen recently with the proposed rule to redefine waters of
the United States, strong congressional oversight is needed to ensure
that we protect private property rights.
Unfortunately, the way this administration developed its National
Ocean Policy increases the opportunities for overreach. The
implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping that it may allow the
Federal Government to affect agricultural practices, mining, energy
producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact
directly or indirectly on the oceans.
The fact is the administration did not work with Congress to develop
this plan and has even refused to provide relevant information to
Congress, so we can't be sure how sweeping it actually will be. That is
why I support the language in the underlying bill and, therefore,
oppose the amendment and suggest that the Committee on Natural
Resources is the one that should be taking this up if they want to
develop a National Ocean Policy.
Mr. FARR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR. First, whoever wrote your statement is wrong on the facts.
I was here. This report that was done by the Bush administration was
brought to the United States Congress, to the Natural Resources
Committee. I was a member. Mr. Pombo was the chairman. He would not
allow Admiral Watkins, who was chair of the committee, to testify on
it. He would not allow a bill, carried by Republican members--Mr.
Greenwood, Mr. Saxton, and others--to be heard. Every attempt was made
to bring that report to Congress to enact as a bill, and the Natural
Resources Committee rejected it, just slammed the door.
What President Obama does, there was more in the recommendations
because there was actually a way of governing regional areas, much like
the National Marine Fisheries does with their regional fishery boards.
None of that was allowed. He only uses executive order to get all the
Federal agencies together so they can come up with a National Ocean
Policy, and not a thing in that policy mentions any of that.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, in fact, we were not wrong. Congress
did not approve a national ocean plan.
Now, we can argue about it whether they should have or whether they
shouldn't have or whether Chairman Pombo should have brought it up or
shouldn't have brought it up, or whatever, but that is way the process
works around here. There are things that aren't brought up that I think
ought to be brought up.
I have got a wildfire funding bill that hasn't been brought up. I
think it ought to be brought up. That doesn't mean the administration
can go out and say: Hey, that is the right thing to do. We are going to
do it by executive order.

That is the problem with this administration, that they have got a
phone and they have got a pen if they don't get what they want out of
Congress and Congress decides not to act for whatever reason. We didn't
act on immigration. I think that was wrong. I think we should have. But
guess what. We didn't. That doesn't free the President to say: Well, if
you won't do it, I am going to do it.
That is kind of what he did with the National Ocean Policy, and that
is the problem we have here. That is why I oppose the amendment, even
though it might be the right thing for us to do in the long run.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding go.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my
colleague from California, which would strike this misguided provision
to prohibit funding of the National Ocean Policy, which permits better
coordination among Federal agencies responsible for coastal planning.
This provision in particular would undermine the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's participation in planning; would hurt
States, communities, and businesses; and would keep States like Rhode
Island from managing resources in a way that best fits their needs and
priorities.
The administration has made it clear that the National Ocean Policy
does not create new regulations, supercede current regulations, or
modify any agency's established mission, jurisdiction, or authority.
Rather, it helps coordinate the implementation of existing regulations
by Federal agencies to establish a more efficient and effective
decisionmaking process.
In the Northeast, our Regional Ocean Council has allowed our States
to pool resources and businesses to have a voice in decisionmaking and
has coordinated with Federal partners to ensure all stakeholders have a
voice in the process, and it was the first in the Nation to release a
draft regional ocean plan.
It is astounding to me that, since 2012, more than 15 riders
undermining ocean planning have been introduced to House bills,
including riders on several previous appropriations bills.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 507. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the removal of any federally owned or operated
dam.

spending reduction account

Sec. 508. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Brownley of California

Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.

[[Page H3090]]

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

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 2102 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 or section 210
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a very
brief amendment to the bill. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself
and my good friend from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
Many of my colleagues, especially those who are members of the
Congressional Ports Caucus, have worked very hard in recent years to
ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers has the funding necessary for
operations and maintenance of our waterways. We achieved a great
victory in WRRDA 2014, which set annual targets for the harbor
maintenance trust fund usage.

{time} 2145

It is vitally important that we not only hit the WRRDA targets, but
that we also ensure that the Army Corps and the White House Office of
Management and Budget allocate harbor maintenance trust fund resources
properly, according to the authorizing statute.
The Brownley-Napolitano amendment simply directs that none of the
funds in the bill can be spent contrary to existing law.
Our amendment is supported by the American Association of Port
Authorities. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment
to ensure that the Army Corps and the OMB follow the direction provided
by Congress in the 2014 law which passed the House in a vote of 412-4.
Mr. Chairman, again, it is critically important for Congress to
ensure that the administration follows the law.
This amendment is intended to ensure that the Corps and the
administration and the OMB implement the law as directed by Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to implement or enforce section 430.32(x) of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations; or
(2) to implement or enforce the standards established by
the tables contained in section 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)), or to
implement or enforce section 430.32(n) of title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, with respect to BPAR incandescent
reflector lamps, BR incandescent reflector lamps, and ER
incandescent reflector lamps.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
will actually maintain current law.
Since its passage in 2007, I have heard from tens of thousands of
constituents about how the language of the 2007 Energy Independence
Security Act takes away consumer choice when deciding what type of
light bulb to use in their homes.
Mr. Chairman, they are right. While the government has passed energy
efficiency standards in other realms over the years, they never moved
so far and lowered standards so drastically.
It is to a point where technology is still years away from making
bulbs that are compliant with the law at a price point that the average
American can afford.
Opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language did not
ban the incandescent bulb. That is true. It bans the sale of the 100-
watt, the 60-watt and then the 45-watt bulb.
The replacement bulbs are far from economically efficient even if
they may be regarded as energy efficient. A family living paycheck to
paycheck simply cannot afford the replacement cost of these bulbs.
But the economics of the light bulb mandate are only part of the
story. With the extreme expansion of Federal powers undertaken by the
Obama administration during the first 2 years of the Obama
administration, Americans woke up to just how far the Constitution's
Commerce Clause has been manipulated from its original intent. The
light bulb mandate is the perfect example of this.
The Commerce Clause was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a
limitation to Federal authority, not a catch-all nod to allow for any
topic to be regulated by Washington.
Indeed, it is clear that the Founding Fathers never intended this
clause to be used to allow the Federal Government to regulate and pass
mandates on consumer products that do not pose a risk to either human
health or safety.
This exact amendment has been accepted for the past 4 years by the
House. The first 3 years it was accepted by a voice vote. It has been
included in the annual appropriations legislation signed into law by
President Obama every year since its first inclusion in 2011.
It allows consumers to continue to have a choice and to have a say
about what they put in their homes. It is just common sense.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this damaging rider which
would block the Department of Energy from implementing or enforcing
commonsense energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. I have the
highest respect for Dr. Burgess, but not on this particular topic.
This rider was a bad idea when it was first offered 5 years ago, and
it is even more unsupportable now. Every claim made by proponents of
this rider has been proven wrong.
Dr. Burgess told us that the energy efficiency standards would ban
incandescent light bulbs. That is simply false. You can go to any store
today and see shelves of modern, energy-efficient, incandescent light
bulbs that meet the standard. I have bought them myself.
They are the same as the old bulbs except that they last longer, they
use less electricity, and they save consumers money.
We have heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict
consumer choice. But if you have shopped for light bulbs lately, you
know that simply isn't true.
Modern incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and LEDs
of every shape, size, and color are now available. Consumers have never
had more choice. The efficiency standards spurred innovation that
dramatically expanded options for consumers.
Critics of the efficiency standards claimed that they would cost
consumers money. In fact, the opposite is true. When the standards are
in full effect, the average American family will save about $100 every
year. That comes to $13 billion in savings nationwide every year. But
this rider threatens those savings, and that is why consumer groups
have consistently opposed this rider.
Here is the reality. The 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards
for light bulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to
receive overwhelming industry support.
U.S. manufacturers are already meeting the efficiency standards. The
effect of the rider is to allow foreign manufacturers to sell old,
inefficient light bulbs in the United States that violate the
efficiency standards.
That is unfair to domestic manufacturers who have invested millions
of dollars in the United States in those plants to make efficient bulbs
here that meet the standards.
Why on earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign
manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalizes U.S. manufacturers who
are following our laws?
But it even gets worse. The rider now poses an additional threat to
U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 energy

[[Page H3091]]

bill requires the Department of Energy to establish updated light bulb
efficiency standards by January 1 of next year.
It also provided that, if final updated standards are not issued by
then, a more stringent standard of 45 lumens per watt automatically
takes effect. Incandescent light bulbs currently cannot meet this
backstop standard.
This rider blocks DOE from issuing the required efficiency standards
and ensures that the backstop will kick in. Ironically, it is this
rider that could effectively ban the incandescent light bulb.
The Burgess rider directly threatens existing light bulb
manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, across our region.
It would stifle innovation and punish companies that have invested in
domestic manufacturing.
This rider aims to reverse years of technological progress only to
kill jobs, increase electricity bills for our constituents, and worsen
pollution.
It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology, and it is time
to listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and
efficiency advocates, who all agree that that rider is harmful.
I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Burgess light bulb rider, no
matter how well intended.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would merely observe that, in calendar
year 2007, the political analyst George Will opined at the end of that
year that the American Congress essentially had two mandates, to
deliver the mail and defend the borders, that it had failed miserably
at both jobs.
Instead of performing either of those jobs, it banned the
incandescent bulb, probably the single greatest invention to have
occurred in America in the 1800s.
This is a commonsense bill. Our constituents have asked for this. The
Congress has supported it. The amendment, in fact, maintains current
law.
I urge all Members to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to expand plutonium pit production capacity at the
PF-4 facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, about an hour and a half ago we had a
very important debate on this floor concerning some 30-plus metric tons
of unused surplus plutonium to be disposed of in South Carolina at the
mixed oxide fuel facility. The debate went on.
I want to thank my colleagues on the majority side for elucidating
the issue and bringing to our attention, as did I, that we have some 34
metric tons of plutonium lying around in various depositories around
the United States. And from our discussion earlier, it is pretty clear
it is not going to be disposed of any time soon.
Now, this bill would set about the United States putting together
facilities that would create even more plutonium somewhere in the range
of 80 nuclear bomb pits. This is the essential element in a nuclear
bomb. For what purpose?
Well, we really probably can't talk about it here in this public
setting, but it appears to be a rather unclear purpose as to why we
would need to build a new facility at a multibillion dollar cost for
the production of more plutonium pits when we have 34 metric tons of
them sitting in various repositories.
So I guess I just kind of ask: Why are we doing that?
Well, this amendment would simply limit the PF-4 facility in Los
Alamos, New Mexico, to no more than 10 pits a year, which they can
produce. Probably a little bit of refurbishing will be necessary as the
years progress, but we really do not need to spend a few billion
dollars on a brand-new facility to make brand-new atomic bomb plutonium
pits.
Why would we do that? Well, I don't think we do need to do that. We
can get by with 10 a year. And I suppose, if we really got into a
situation where we need to build more, we could run 2 shifts a day,
maybe even 3 shifts a day, and get production up to some 20.
Nobody has really bothered to explain in detail why we need more than
10, and certainly nobody has explained in detail why we need 80.
So that is what this amendment does. It simply says: Let's save our
money. Let's not put it into a facility that we don't need and go about
our business of making just 9 or 10 new nuclear plutonium pits a year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because I am
concerned that the amendment would limit the activities that may be
necessary to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. That is basically
it.
We need to be modernizing the legacy facilities of the National
Nuclear Security Administration. And these are old facilities, if we
are going to have a credible nuclear deterrent.
That is what this is all about, is keeping our nuclear deterrent and
making sure that we have the facilities to produce those things that
are necessary. It is as simple as that.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2200

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, 2 minutes is probably insufficient to
persuade my colleagues on the majority side that my argument is worthy
of support; but nonetheless, I will take a shot at it.
We can build 9 or 10 pits a year now. If we go to two shifts, we
could build 20. The only reason we would need 80 has to do with a
revamped, refurbished nuclear bomb, which I will talk about tomorrow
morning, because at the request of the majority, I was asked to put it
off until tomorrow morning.
In any case, where are we today?
We have enough nuclear weapons to pretty much destroy the entire
world or any enemy that would like to take us on.
Do we need to have 80 new nuclear pits a year?
In all the testimony I have heard in the various classified sessions,
the answer is: We would like to have it. We would like to have that
capability because sometime maybe somehow we may have a nuclear war,
and we will expend all of our existing bombs and we will need to
somehow make more.
I am not exactly sure why we would be making more after a nuclear
war, but there are some who would argue that would be necessary.
I don't get it. I really don't understand when we have the capability
to build sufficient nuclear bomb components, the pit, the plutonium
pit, why we would want to spend a few billion dollars--an unknown
number, by the way, not unlike the MOX facility, it is likely to
rapidly escalate.
But our Los Alamos scientists would like to have something new and
fancy when something old is quite necessary. My wife always said that
there is a choice between nice and necessary. I have yet to hear the
argument for necessary, why we should set our path on spending several
billion dollars on a new pit production facility. I am sure there is
some argument to be made. In any case, I have a sense that I might lose
this vote on the floor when I will ask for a vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H3092]]

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. Emmer of
Minnesota, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 5055) making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

____________________