[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.

                          ____________________