Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 126 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H6437-H6463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3219.
Will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Donovan) kindly resume the
chair.

{time} 2104

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3219) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Donovan (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 42 printed in House Report 115-259, offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43
printed in House Report 115-259.
Mr. PERRY. 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 286, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
Page 296, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the
chairman of the full committee for his extraordinary work and for the
chairman of the subcommittee for this auspicious opportunity.
I have been listening to the arguments recently that we have had on
the floor regarding the most recent amendments between fossil fuels and
renewables, and I am hoping to strike a sweet spot here. I am not
picking on fossil fuels, and I am going to talk about a renewable that
I think everybody has an affinity for and an agreement with.
This amendment simply increases funding for hydroelectric through the
EERE by $15 million and decreases funding to the bureaucracy. There is
no increase to the budget. This amendment just increases the
appropriation for the Office of Energy and Efficiency and Renewable
Energy because hydropower is available in every region of the country;
2,200 hydropower plants provide America's most abundant source of
clean, renewable electricity. I would say it is the first renewable. It
accounts for 67 percent of domestic renewable generation and, clearly,
7 percent of total electricity generation.
By 2025, hydropower would create almost a million and a half new,
good, high-paying jobs. It can be implemented in rivers, harbors,
coastal areas, et cetera, to capture energy from currents and tides.
Harnessing this energy will create a truly and absolutely renewable and
green source of energy without any emissions and with little fanfare to
everybody involved.
Hydro is predictable year-round power output, while other renewable
source outputs can be variable in some areas and necessitate the use of
large battery banks and alternate power sources. For instance,
sometimes when the wind doesn't blow, believe it or not, if you don't
know it, there is a gas-fired generator often associated with those
windmill farms that has to come on because base load isn't being
serviced.
Hydropower facilities are quiet, unobtrusive, while many people
report that considerable noise is generated by wind power and that land
is taken up by huge solar farms.
Hydropower is base load energy. That means it is on all the time, 24
hours a day, 365 days a year, just sitting there turning out the power
so that you can hit the light switch when you come home and not wonder:
Is the power going to be on? It backs up other intermittent sources of
energy.

[[Page H6438]]

Hydropower is safe. It harms neither fish nor man. It all faces a
comprehensive and regular regulatory approval process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. I claim the time in opposition, although I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Mr. Perry's
amendment and the power and potential of clean marine hydrokinetic
energy, and I first want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member
Kaptur for their leadership in supporting the Water Power Technologies
Office. The Water Power Technologies Office invests in research and
development that supports hydropower, pumped storage, and marine
energy.
Furthermore, I want to thank the chair and ranking member for
including $30 million in the 2017 omnibus for the creation of a wave
energy test center, which is now located at Oregon State University.
This robust investment will help the United States lead in the field of
marine hydrokinetic energy. The increase this amendment proposes will
support hydropower and the development of innovative hydropower
technologies, along with marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies.
Development of these new technologies can offer the United States
leadership in an emerging area of abundant renewable energy.
Marine and hydrokinetic energy, in particular, energy from waves,
currents, and tides, is an exciting frontier in the renewable energy
sector. Currently, Oregon State University, University of Washington,
and the University of Alaska Fairbanks are partnering to support the
testing and research activities of the Northwest National Marine
Renewable Energy Center. This center will provide visionary
entrepreneurs with a domestic location to test wave energy devices,
along with other technologies, rather than traveling to Scotland to use
the European test center. Without continued Federal investment, Europe
will remain the leader in this important work.
When fully developed, wave and tidal energy systems could generate a
significant amount of total energy used in the United States. As
Congress promotes technologies that can help lower our constituents'
energy bills, we must explore new and innovative solutions like marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy.
Thank you again to the chairman and ranking member for their hard
work and legislative leadership on this issue, and thank you to
Representative Perry for his leadership.
Mr. Chair, I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, a lot of what we hear is is that our
constituents wish that we would work together more often, and I thank
the gentlewoman for her comments and her support; and I think it is
just proof that we can work together for something that we agree on,
which is clean power, the power to just power our future, and that
comes from hydroelectricity.
I don't know why it is not as sexy as it should be. I think it is one
of the greatest marvels of technology starting back since the beginning
of time and when power was first generated, and I don't understand why
we don't rely on it more.
To that end, literally 60,000 megawatts of preliminary permits and
projects await final approval and are pending before FERC in 45 States
right now. Eighty thousand--80,000--nonpowered dams in the United
States, of which 600 have immediate hydro capability, right now could
be producing energy.

Mr. Chair, 80,000 nonpowered dams in the United States, just think
about that. And the State I hail from and I am privileged to represent
a portion of, Pennsylvania, has 678 megawatts of untapped hydropower
right now.
Mr. Chairman, I would just urge all of our colleagues to vote for
this amendment.
I, again, appreciate the chairmen of the committee and of the
subcommittee for this opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time,
please.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. BONAMICI. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms.
Pingree), a strong supporter of hydropower.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much to my colleague from
Oregon for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to rise in support, today, of the Perry
amendment.
I thank my colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Pennsylvania
for their leadership on this important renewable energy issue.
I also want to thank the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Simpson, whom
I am fortunate to also serve on the Interior Committee with. Mr.
Simpson has worked hard on this bill to increase some of the levels of
funding above the abysmal levels that were proposed by the
administration's budget earlier this year.
And also, to our ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, my friend from Ohio, I
thank her for her commitment to renewable energy and our energy future.
The amendment before us today would provide a modest increase in
funding to the Department of Energy's Water Power Program. It is a
bipartisan effort, and I am pleased to be part of that. It comes from
the fact that many parts of the country are seeking the real benefits
of tidal energy that generates incredible power, or of hydrokinetic
power that taps the power of flowing water.
In response to my colleague from Pennsylvania, in Maine, we think
tidal energy is very sexy.
The Department of Energy supports private sector research,
development, and implementation of hydropower, pumped storage, and
marine tidal energy. It supports cutting-edge research and makes sure
that the office supports all three types of water-based technologies.
Last year, nearly 100 teams competed in a competition for an Energy
Department-funded wave energy prize, with 20 finalists coming from 10
States, showing the breadth of interest in this work. Congress needs to
support multifaceted work at a level that will continue to allow for
innovation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support renewable energy,
support water power, and support the Perry amendment.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment and
encourage all of you to do the same.
As the sponsor of the amendment explained, this does not take
additional money, cuts down on bureaucracy, and puts the dollars into
important work, like marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 2115

Amendment No. 44 Offered by Ms. Esty of Connecticut

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44
printed in House Report 115-259.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, 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 286, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 288, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my
amendment to increase funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Office by
$20 million.
I want to thank my colleagues, Representative Tom Reed, John Katko,
and Jacky Rosen for their partnership in this bipartisan amendment.
Our amendment is about protecting and creating millions of good-
paying

[[Page H6439]]

jobs in Connecticut and across the country. Our amendment will help us
ensure that the technologically advanced products of the future will be
manufactured, not in China, not in India, but right here in the United
States of America.
The Department of Energy's Advanced Manufacturing Office is the only
technology development office within the Federal Government that is
dedicated to enhancing American manufacturing competitiveness. The
Advanced Manufacturing Office works to help manufacturers improve
energy and material efficiency, technology, and productivity.
Unfortunately, the appropriations bill before us today cuts funding
to the Advanced Manufacturing Office by $155.5 million from fiscal year
2017 enacted levels, and that is a mistake.
Manufacturing is one of the most important sectors of the U.S.
economy. In 2016, manufacturing contributed $2.18 trillion to our
economy and employed 12.3 million workers. In my home State of
Connecticut, manufacturing has long been our economic backbone.
Connecticut is home to nearly 5,000 manufacturing companies that
provide good-paying jobs for 76,000 Connecticut residents. This
amendment helps American manufacturers all across the country to be
more competitive by reducing energy costs.
Manufacturing is very energy intensive. In fact, according to the
National Association of Manufacturers, manufacturers consume more than
30 percent of our Nation's energy. That translates to $130 billion in
costs to U.S. manufacturers every year.
Adequately funding the Advanced Manufacturing Office, will help
reduce energy costs to manufacturers, freeing up their budgets to
invest in research and development, expand their facilities, and, most
importantly, hire more people.
Our amendment also helps American manufacturers become more
competitive by addressing critical workforce needs in energy
efficiency.
Last year, I visited Forum Plastics, a plastic molding company based
in Waterbury, Connecticut. I met with employees to discuss the
expectations and challenges facing manufacturers in America today, and
one of the topics that came up was how businesses struggle to hire
workers with the right skills. Yet, that same year, Forum Plastics
partnered with the Advanced Manufacturing Office to carry out an
industrial assessment project.
The Industrial Assessment Centers program is a tool for employers to
recruit individuals with hands-on experience in energy efficiency.
Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to roll back investments in
American manufacturing. It is the time to increase our support for U.S.
manufacturing. I know all of us in this Chamber are committed to
promoting good-paying jobs in the communities we represent, but it is
not enough to say we are committed.
We need to make job creation a priority, and that means making
American manufacturing a priority. I urge my colleagues to support our
amendment which increases funding to the Department of Energy's
Advanced Manufacturing Office by $20 million, fully paid for by a
reduction in the more than $350 million plus-up to funding for the
Office of Fossil Energy Research & Development.
This bipartisan amendment is a win for American manufacturing and a
win for our economy. I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, first, let me say, it was not a $300-some-
odd-million plus-up in the fossil energy research. In fact, I think the
fossil energy research account was down from last year.
It was more than the President requested, but it is not a plus-up
from what it was in 2017.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment
would increase funding for the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy by
$20 million but has to use $40 million from the Fossil Energy Research
& Development account as an offset.
This bill was the result of some tough choices. I have to admit, they
were some tough choices. It is not that I oppose the program that the
good lady advocates for, but there were some tough choices. We had to
prioritize research and development that will increase our energy
independence.
Our domestic energy resources are vast, and this bill strikes a
balance to lay the foundations for future energy generation
technologies, while maintaining full support for the resources we use
most today.
Increasing funding for EERE by diverting funding from fossil energy
strikes the wrong balance when considering the Nation's electricity
needs. Fossil fuels produce 65 percent of the electricity we use today
and will continue to provide the majority of the Nation's energy needs
in the future.
This amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures that
we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well, and as cleanly as
possible. For all of the reasons that team fossil talked about earlier
tonight, I must oppose the amendment and urge my Members to do the
same.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to
support this. If we can help our manufacturers be more efficient in
their use of energy, we can help them be more competitive, hire more
people, and develop that clean energy technology for coal.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. 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 gentlewoman from
Connecticut will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 46 will not be offered.

Amendment No. 49 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49
printed in House Report 115-259.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 296, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, in these difficult times, I want to thank
the chairman and ranking member, Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member
Kaptur of the subcommittee, for shepherding this legislation to the
floor, and for their efforts, and the commitment that we all have to
preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that
they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
My amendment increases funding for the DOE departmental
administration by $1 million, which should be used to enhance the
Department's Environmental Justice program activities.
The Environmental Justice program is an essential tool in the effort
to improve the lives of low-income and minority communities, as well as
the environment at large. Twenty years ago, this particular program was
established directing Federal agencies to identify and address the
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.
So we have engaged with Historically Black Colleges, minority-serving
institutions, Tribal colleges, and other organizations to improve and
develop the sustainability through developing

[[Page H6440]]

young people and faculty to work on these important issues.
The crisis in Flint, Michigan, teaches us how important it is that
minority groups and low-income communities are not placed at a
disadvantage when it comes to environmental threats and hazards like
lead in drinking water or nesting areas for mosquitos carrying the Zika
virus. I particularly remember convening a Zika task force in Houston
to ensure that areas in my community, because of the sitting water and
a lot of heat, did not breed these mosquitos to create a devastating
condition in some of our communities.
This Environmental Justice program is extremely important, involving
community education and advisory projects, community capacity building
through technology, the Community Leaders Institute, but, more
importantly, it works on important research.
Mr. Chair, might I find out how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to make note of the fact that in
some of the universities that participate in this program, the chairs--
meaning the faculty chairs--are a team of world-class scholars,
researchers, and educators from 14 Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, one Hispanic-serving institution, who advance research,
enhance academics, promote partnerships, and effect outreach in the
environmental sciences.
Finally, the Minority Serving Institutions Program that includes a
wide array of institutions provides funding to minority-serving
institutions to advance scientific research, student internships,
faculty fellowships, and curriculum development.
Mr. Chair, the more we can invest in science and research, helping to
improve our environment--and let me make it very clear, in urban and
rural areas. This is not an urban program only. It is urban and rural
areas. The more we can help our communities be clean and
environmentally safe and secure, the more we create a better quality of
life for all people, no matter what their economic station in life or
where they live.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur
for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment
to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that
they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
My amendment increases funding for DOE departmental administration by
$1,000,000 which should be used to enhance the Department's
Environmental Justice program activities.
Mr. Chair, the Environmental Justice Program is an essential tool in
the effort to improve the lives of low income and minority communities
as well as the environment at large.
Twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued
Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify and
address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income
populations.
A healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community
which fosters personal and economic growth.
Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically
Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, Tribal
Colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting
sustainability and growth of the community and environment.
The funding of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority
groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the
environment and the continued preservation of their homes.
The crisis in Flint, Michigan teaches us how important it that
minority groups and low-income communities are not placed at a
disadvantage when it comes to environment threats and hazards like lead
in drinking water or nesting areas for mosquitos carrying the Zika
virus.
Through education about the importance of environmental
sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and
how citizens can improve their surroundings.
Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase
youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy,
weatherization, clean-up, and asset revitalization. These improvements
would provide protection to our most vulnerable groups.
This program provides better access to technology for underserved
communities. Together, the Department of Energy and Department of
Agriculture have distributed over 5,000 computers to low income
populations.
The Community Leaders Institute is another vital component of the
Environmental Justice Program. It ensures that those in leadership
positions understand what is happening in their communities and can
therefore make informed decisions in regards to their communities.
In addition to promoting environmental sustainability, CLI also
brings important factors including public health and economic
development into the discussion for community leaders.
The CLI program has been expanded to better serve Native Americans
and Alaska Natives, which is a prime example of how various other
minority groups can be assisted as well.
Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also
benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management,
and other related subjects.
The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority
institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The
DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM
fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find
employment.
Since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has also funded 175 energy
projects amounting to over $41.8 million in order to help tribes invest
in renewable sources of energy.
With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can provide clean
energy options to our most underserved communities and help improve
their environments, which will yield better health outcomes and greater
public awareness.
We must help our low income and minority communities and ensure
equality for those who are most vulnerable in our country.
I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment
for the Environmental Justice Program.
Mr. Chair, I ask my friends and my colleagues to support the Jackson
Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 50 Offered by Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50
printed in House Report 115-259.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. 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 297, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $98,000,000) (increased by $98,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) 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, my amendment
ensures that NNSA has adequate work space to fulfil its national
security mission. In my home State of New Mexico, over 1,000 Federal
and contract employees at NNSA currently work in a network of old and
rapidly deteriorating facilities on Kirtland Air Force Base in New
Mexico.
A portion of the existing facility includes a 60-year-old former
military barracks, which creates a number of health, safety, and
quality-of-life issues for its employees. These employees are involved
in some of our Nation's most important national security work,
including managing our Nation's nuclear deterrent and reducing global
nuclear and radiological threats.
The NNSA administrator, Lieutenant General Klotz, said that:

The highly talented employees in Albuquerque are frankly
forced to work in facilities that are inadequate to NNSA's
current mission.

Furthermore, because of the age of the buildings, NNSA is forced to
spend approximately $6 million every year on maintenance and repairs
just to keep them habitable.
In fact, the $40 million worth of deferred maintenance alone on the
old buildings is approximately one-fifth of what it would cost to build
a new, modern, and reliable facility. So this is a perfect opportunity
to save money in the long run.
I strongly support NNSA's efforts to replace the existing complex
with a single new building that will provide

[[Page H6441]]

safe, reliable, and sustainable infrastructure that improves the safety
and working environment for approximately 1,200 employees.
The new state-of-the-art facility will meet enhanced environmental
standards and consolidate staff for a more efficient delivery and
support of the important national security work at NNSA.

{time} 2130

The current total project cost is $202 million, and I agree with
Chairman Simpson that we have an obligation to ensure that every single
taxpayer dollar for this project is used efficiently and effectively.
I know that the chairman shares my concerns to ensure that NNSA has
the infrastructure and resources it needs to fulfill its national
security mission now and in the future. That is why I am pleased that
he has agreed to work with me on this issue to ensure that we are
fulfilling our oversight responsibilities while moving the construction
of the Albuquerque complex project forward.
With that, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlewoman's concern and
thank her for her advocacy for this project.
The committee has been supportive of this project and has provided
$42 million in prior years. The bill includes an additional $18 million
to ensure that the project moves forward, and I am happy to work with
her as the project advances and understand this amendment will be
withdrawn, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
the chairman's words and respect his work prior to this and in this
current effort to get this space and the facility infrastructure issues
addressed. I look forward to working with him on a variety of ideas to
make sure that we get this project completed in a timely and effective
manner.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Foster

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51
printed in House Report 115-259.
Mr. FOSTER. 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 297, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a symbolic adjustment to
the NNSA budget intended to raise awareness about two areas of emerging
national security risk that I believe deserve more attention and
investment.
As the only Ph.D. physicist in Congress, I feel a special
responsibility to speak out on issues of national security, especially
when they concern emerging technological threats that Congress may not
be sufficiently aware of.
Any student of the history of warfare is well aware of the dangers of
fighting the last war, and for more than 70 years, nuclear weapons have
held center stage among threats to our national security and global
safety because of their unique capabilities to threaten the existence
of mankind. That threat remains, but I fear that the balance of our
defensive investments do not adequately reflect emerging threats.
We now appear to be in the process of deciding to spend over $1
trillion to upgrade our nuclear weapons despite the fact that our
existing systems are far more sufficient to deter any rational actor.
There is no adversary of ours who is not intimidated by our nuclear
arsenal but who will suddenly fall in line if we add just one more
upgrade or additional weapons manufacturing capability. Put simply,
another generation of nuclear weapons will not make us significantly
safer.
On the other hand, we live in a world where newly emerging and
potentially equally great threats loom: first, bioterror, driven by
recent breakthroughs in genetic engineering and off-the-shelf
biotechnology; and, second, lethal autonomous weapons systems driven by
recent breakthroughs in machine vision, facial recognition, and
artificial intelligence. These are small, inexpensive lethal drones and
similar devices that use machine vision and artificial intelligence to
target individuals or groups of humans, potentially without any human
involvement in the kill decision.
For those of my colleagues unfamiliar with these technologies,
perform an internet search for the term ``lethal autonomous weapons
systems,'' sometimes abbreviated ``LAWS''; or read the recent press
coverage of the ab initio synthesis of the horsepox virus, a close
variant of the smallpox virus that killed millions; then search for the
term ``biohacking.''
For more detailed information, I urge my colleagues to request a
classified or unclassified briefing on recent studies of these subjects
by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Both of these technologies pose unique threats to our national
security for two reasons:
The first is because of the small physical footprint of a terror
facility based on either of these technologies. Either a bioterror
laboratory or a small shop to produce and program small lethal drones
could easily fit in a basement or small apartment. There is no
radiological signature to detect them as there is with nuclear
material.
The second is because of the low cost and general availability of key
enabling technological components. The monetary investment necessary
for a capable terror facility is in the range of hundreds of thousands
of dollars, perhaps less.
The relevant technologies are already in wide use in industry.
Contrast this with the threats of nuclear proliferation, where the
multibillion-dollar investment to enrich and separate nuclear fissile
material pretty much limits nuclear weapons either to established
nation-states or perhaps terrorist organizations with access to fissile
material from poorly guarded facilities.
Anyone who is unconvinced that we need to take these emerging threats
seriously needs only to look at what happened in cybersecurity. One of
the painful lessons we have learned in recent years is that everything
evil that can be done with computer viruses has, in fact, been done. In
large part, this is because of the low barriers to entry and the
difficulty of attributing an attack. Both of these features are shared
fully by both bioterror and lethal autonomous weapons systems.
So if we are going to stay ahead of these threats, we need to be
strategic about our investments. It is time to reconsider the wisdom of
pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into Cold War weapons which
contribute negligibly to our national security and past time to
consider a much more rapid increase in investments in defensive
measures against lethal autonomous weapons systems and against
bioterror, because by the time they become a reality, it will be too
late to react.
As a leader in technology and innovation, the United States should
act now to circumvent any danger these technologies could pose.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, 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 understand the gentleman's concern on
this issue and appreciate the fact that

[[Page H6442]]

he brought it up for discussion here tonight.
I would note that the weapons activities accounts provides funding to
ensure the reliability of our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The
NNSA does not use funds within this account to counter proliferation of
biological weapons, although I understand it is an important issue, and
I agree with them we need to address this issue.
However, this amendment increases and decreases the same account and
has no effect on the bill overall, so I will accept the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and to take the time to educate themselves about these
emerging threats.
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. Foster).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52
printed in House Report 115-259.
Mr. GARAMENDI. 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 297, line 21, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $118,017,000)''.
Page 298, line 11, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $118,017,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to be on a roll here, given the last
amendment being accepted on a ``yes'' vote.
This amendment would make America more secure by focusing our very
limited tax dollars on programs to keep nuclear material out of the
hands of terrorists rather than excess national laboratory
infrastructure spending.
According to The Washington Post, the world dodged a bullet when ISIS
failed to realize that it had the ingredients for a dirty bomb under
its control in Mosul for more than 3 years. This underscores the
importance of the need for U.S. leadership and resources to secure
nuclear material around the world.
My amendment would provide an increase of $118 million for the
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, DNN, funding. DNN funding includes
critical programs such as the nuclear smuggling and detection program,
which works with partner countries to improve intelligence, law
enforcement, and border security capabilities to detect nuclear
material trafficking.
It also supports programs to improve the security of radiological
material around the world and to remove it from areas when nuclear
materials cannot be adequately and safely secured.
The Make America Secure Appropriations Act makes significant cuts to
these programs which keep nuclear material out of the hands of
terrorists and those who would then use that material to do us harm.
For example, there is a 30 percent cut from the nuclear smuggling
detection funding, a 79 percent cut from the highly enriched uranium
reduction programs, and, overall, a $150 million cut to this program.
At the same time, the underlying legislation would increase by 38
percent, a plus-up above what the administration recommended for the
weapons activities infrastructure recapitalization budget line. This
increase was not requested by the administration and is not supported
by the Senate. The underlying bill already includes a $59 million
increase in infrastructure recapitalization spending and a $71 million
increase over the fiscal year 2017-enacted level for maintenance and
repair facilities.
We can go on and on. We have heard discussions here already about the
trillion-dollar-plus expansion of the nuclear weapons programs.
Specifically, this money that I would move out of this particular
infrastructure recapitalization account is for the construction of a
new facility to build nuclear plutonium pits. These pits are presumably
going to be needed for a weapon that is almost certainly not going to
be built, which is the interoperable new bomb.
The interoperable weapon is to go on existing and remodeled rockets
for the Navy and for the Air Force, neither of whom thinks it is a
particularly good idea. So that program, should it ever come to pass,
could be delayed, and we could then use this $118 million now to deal
with a known problem.
If, in the future, we decide that we need to be able to produce
somewhere between 30 and 80 new pits a year, there is time enough to do
that. The account that calls for the maintenance of the existing
facilities will provide sufficient funds to meet all of the known
needs, with the exception of the interoperable nuclear weapon, which,
in all probability, is not ever going to be built or needed.
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, although I am opposed to the amendment, I
have to admit that I do enjoy our annual discussion on this.
I oppose this amendment because the bill already shows strong support
for the nonproliferation programs of the NNSA. Funding for nuclear
defense nonproliferation is $1.83 billion--$76.5 million below fiscal
year 2017 and $16.8 million below the budget request.
Within nonproliferation, the bill largely supports funding as
requested, but makes a limited number of realignments within the
account to emphasize the importance of nonproliferation research and
development activities and to meet international commitments for
plutonium disposition.
Our understanding--and this is the important point. Our understanding
is that budget request is down because NNSA still has significant
unexpended balances in this account due to slow progress on
international nonproliferation agreements.
Specifically, the NNSA reported in May that it had approximately $2.2
billion in funds available to carry out its nonproliferation mission,
of which over $680 million is left over from prior years. For years,
NNSA has struggled to execute funding in its nonproliferation budget
because it could not obtain agreement from other nations to do the work
as quickly as planned or as we would maybe like to.
This amendment also targets funding from the weapons activities
infrastructure recapitalization program. Created in fiscal year 2014 by
Congress, the recapitalization program has been highly successful in
addressing the aging and deteriorating infrastructure at NNSA sites.
Replacing things like telephone poles, leaking fireman valves, roofing,
and addressing other basic infrastructure needs are essential to the
safe and continued operation of these nuclear security sites.
The budget request proposed to cut the program, and the bill
increases funding $118 million above the request to restore that
program to the fiscal year 2017 level. We should not divert funding
needed to address these urgent infrastructure needs, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GARAMENDI. That might be sufficient, Mr. Chairman, although I
doubt I will persuade the worthy chairman with whom we have had this
little tussle back and forth.
The fact of the matter is that there are two accounts to deal with
this issue of the nuclear sites and the maintenance of them.

{time} 2145

One is a maintenance facility, which is plussed-up and sufficient to
maintain and upgrade the existing facilities, particularly the
plutonium pit, the metallurgical facility, as well as continue the
construction of the highly enriched uranium facilities.

[[Page H6443]]

Those are already available and that money is in those accounts. It
turns out that this money for recapitalization is for the construction
of a new pit production facility. The NNSA claims that it needs that
facility to build additional pits beyond the 20 to 30 that could be
constructed in the refurbished existing pit.
The need for the new pit production facility is specifically for the
interoperable nuclear warhead, which is not likely to be needed. And
should it be decided at a future date to be needed, there is plenty of
time to build the facility and construct the additional nuclear
plutonium pits. The bottom line is that this money is not needed now
for that facility.
Could the money be used in the nonproliferation?
It could.
Why were those agreements delayed?
Because of many different reasons, but the fact of the matter is that
those agreements are going to be going forward. The fact of the matter
is that there is a continuing problem of loose nukes and materials
around the world, which can cause a problem. The Mosul situation is one
of many examples.
The cuts that do take place in smuggling, in research, and the like
are serious. We ought to be paying attention.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the continuation of this discussion,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this infrastructure
need is not for a new pit facility. They would need to come to us and
ask us what they were going to do with funding, and request funding for
that. They did not do that. This is for infrastructure needs and
upgrades.
But the other thing is that I am as much a nonproliferation activist
as anyone in this body. I think it is important work. But the reality
is that there are $681 million unexpended from previous years, not
because funding is not available--the money is there--but they haven't
been able to get agreements with other countries. Unfortunately, you
can't do work in other countries without having agreements with those
countries.
So, consequently, we are--I guess you could maybe say--overfunded in
nonproliferation if we can't spend the money on that activity. That is
the problem.
Why would we put the money into that when we need the money in
infrastructure and building and repairing the buildings and facilities
that NNSA has?
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
I am sure if this amendment is defeated, we will have this discussion
next year, and I hope my colleagues will vote against this.
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.
Mr. GARAMENDI. 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.

Amendment No. 53 Offered by Ms. Rosen

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53
printed in House Report 115-259.
Ms. ROSEN. 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 301, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Page 326, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to strip
funding for defense nuclear waste disposal and return this money to the
Treasury in order to reduce the deficit.
The $30 million allocated under the appropriations bill being
considered here tonight has the potential to be used to expand Yucca
Mountain so that it can be used to store defense waste, in addition to
civilian nuclear waste.
If there is one issue a majority of Nevadans agree on, it is that we
wholeheartedly oppose becoming the Nation's dumping ground for
radioactive waste.
First, for my non-Nevada friends, some history. In 1987, Congress
amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and targeted Yucca Mountain,
located less than 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the sole site
for our Nation's geological repository. It is a fancy way of choosing
Nevada as their nuclear dump.
For over 30 years, the State of Nevada and local communities have
rejected this misguided project on safety, public health, and
environmental grounds. In fact, we have filed 218 contentions against
the Department of Energy's license application, citing safety and
environmental issues in its assessments.
Numerous scientific studies have deemed Yucca Mountain unsafe based
on the fact that it sits above an aquifer and is in a seismically
active area that just experienced a 4.1 magnitude earthquake.
Any plans involving Yucca Mountain, including the recently introduced
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Acts, or any proposed plans to comingle
defense and civilian nuclear waste at Yucca, ignore the environmental,
safety, and security concerns of Nevadans who would be forced to store
nuclear waste that they had no role in creating.
Using Yucca Mountain as the Nation's dumping ground would require
transporting over 70,000 metric tons of radioactive waste, much of it
through my district and through the heart of Las Vegas, a city that
attracts over 43 million visitors annually and generates over $59
billion in revenue.
Not only does this project endanger those in Nevada, Mr. Chairman, it
also threatens the health and safety of millions of Americans from over
329 congressional districts across this country who live along the
proposed transportation route.
As if this wasn't bad enough, now the Nation's most egregious nuclear
waste producers and even some of my colleagues across the aisle are
suggesting that we comingle defense waste with civilian waste from
power plants, inappropriately increasing the amount of high-level
radioactive material dumped in Nevada by 37 percent. This means more
nuclear material coming to Yucca, and more waste traveling through 44
States and Washington, D.C.
There are also concerns that this will hinder the Air Force's
readiness and our country's ability to defend itself. Last week, the
Las Vegas Review-Journal ran a story featuring Heather Wilson,
Secretary of the Air Force, and her concerns with the Yucca Mountain
project.
She cited how it will directly impact Nellis Air Force Base's ability
to complete its mission to train servicemembers for war, because there
is no route across the range that would not impact testing and
training.
Her concerns, unfortunately, are not new. Since 2003, the Air Force
has consistently stated that they know of no route through the Nevada
Test and Training Range that would avoid sensitive areas or not
negatively impact readiness activities.
I understand that our country's nuclear waste must go somewhere, but
this decades-old battle has proven that Yucca is not the place. We must
stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars by resurrecting a project
that has been dead for over 30 years, and, instead, identify viable
alternatives for the long-term repository in areas that are proven safe
and whose communities consent to storage.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, with the
understanding that we will begin a serious discussion on how to
properly handle our country's waste, instead of continuing down the
path of forcing this waste on my State.
I fully understand we have to put our country's defense and civilian
waste somewhere. But for the first time, let's bring Nevadans to the
table and let's share the responsibility of facing the consequences of
nuclear production.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and withdraw my
amendment.

[[Page H6444]]

The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 54 Offered by Ms. Pingree

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54
printed in House Report 115-259.
Ms. PINGREE. 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 325, strike lines 17 through 21.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from Maine (Ms. Pingree) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maine.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pingree-Carbajal-
Bonamici-Langevin-Lowenthal-Cicilline-Schneider-Beyer amendment, which
is widely supported.
All of the cosponsors of this amendment care passionately about the
need for ocean planning, and I commend the leadership of my colleagues
on this issue each and every year that we fight this battle for
sensible ocean policy.
We need, as a Congress, to recognize the importance of our oceans and
ocean planning. Ocean planning works, and is working already in New
England, where we have a success story of fishermen, lobstermen, Native
American Tribes, local communities, and other stakeholders developing
voluntary regional ocean plans.
I have heard from many of my constituents working in Maine's island
communities about the importance not only of ocean planning, but of
eco-based management of our oceans, a core part of moving forward to a
21st century fishery.
Our fishery is changing, and coastal communities want to be attentive
to changes in our ecosystems to resource development and other uses for
our oceans. For example, our plan in New England ensures that there is
advanced ecological data available to help decisionmakers, enhance
ocean stakeholder engagement through the collection of stakeholder-
driven information, and facilitates agency coordination.
The language in today's underlying bill would make it even more
difficult for Federal agencies, State, and local communities to work
together on the future of our ocean resources.
For those of us representing coastal districts, this rider is a bad
addition to the bill, and we need to strike it.
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 reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support and as a
proud cosponsor of this amendment. I do so in defense of one of our
most magnificent natural resources: the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes contain a fifth of the world's and 95 percent of our
Nation's surface water. The Lakes are an important asset to our economy
and the quality of life of our Nation, and in my district in
particular.
The National Ocean Policy also helps protect the vitality of our
Great Lakes ecosystem. However, section 505 of this bill will undermine
our National Ocean Policy and the ability of agencies to coordinate
with States, local governments, and other agencies to protect these
beautiful waters. That is why I support striking section 505.
We have a profound obligation to be responsible stewards of the
environment and to pass on a clean, healthy, and dynamic environment
for future generations.
Mr. Chair, I support the Pingree amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
While there may be instances--and I am sure there are--in which
greater coordination would be helpful in ensuring our coastal resources
are available for future generations, any such coordination must be
done carefully to protect against Federal overreach.
As we saw with the Obama administration's WOTUS rule to redefine
waters of the United States, thorough and strong Congressional
oversight is needed to ensure that we protect private property rights.
Unfortunately, the way the Obama administration developed the
National Ocean Policy increased the opportunities for Federal
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 on the oceans.
The facts is that the previous administration did not work with
Congress. This is their National Ocean Policy. They never brought it to
Congress.
If you are going to do something this sweeping, you need to have
congressional input. They never came to Congress to develop its plan,
and they had even refused to provide relevant information to Congress.
So we can't be sure how sweeping it actually could be if left
unchecked.

{time} 2200

That is why I support the language of the underlying bill and,
therefore, oppose this amendment. But I understand their concern. But
why not bring it to Congress? Why not have Congress enact the National
Ocean Policy instead of just relying on the executive branch to do
whatever they want to do? That is the problem the Natural Resources
Committee has with this. It is a problem I have with this, and that is
why I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, if my good colleague could guarantee me he
could give me the votes on the floor, I would be happy to bring a bill
like that forward to Congress.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mr.
Lowenthal).
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, my district is a poster child for the
need for ocean coordination and information sharing. In my district, we
have the busiest port complex in North America, we have offshore
drilling, we have San Clemente Island, which is a naval training ground
where they have a ship-to-shore firing range. We have abundant wildlife
in the district. On top of that, sea level rise and extreme weather
threatens neighborhoods and businesses all along the coast of my
district.
With so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the
various stakeholders at the table, to make sure ships come in and out
of port safely, to ensure that our thriving economy stays thriving, and
to give the military space to train. We want these collaborations to
happen because we want to have a sustainable ocean economy.
By developing regional plans and having a framework for multi-
stakeholder involvement, we can promote a robust ocean economy that
also conserves our precious ocean resources. The country and my
district needs a comprehensive approach to our ocean resources, which
the National Ocean Policy provides.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I will just say it is kind of interesting
that I don't disagree with anything Ms. Pingree is saying. The problem
is, there is a process, and Congress needs to be involved.
The last administration did not involve Congress. If it is a good
policy, why don't we just let the administration do it? If you can't
get the votes on the floor, doesn't that tell you something?
Maybe you need to go and work this out and bring the policy to the
floor. But if we are just going to let the administration do that, I
don't know, maybe we will let this administration just enact a tax
policy because we have a tough time doing it here in Congress. I don't
know, maybe we will let them enact the healthcare policy because we
can't get together on the floor to see what to do about our healthcare
system, so let's just let the administration do it all.
It is exactly what you are doing with this. You bring an actual ocean
policy to the floor, if I think it is a good bill

[[Page H6445]]

and necessary, I will vote for it. I can't tell you what I will vote
for yet because I haven't seen it.
But just because Congress hasn't acted doesn't give the
administrative branch of government the right to interject itself and
take on the legislative branch of government's responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I think there are
frequently moments when the administration overrides the opinion of the
Congress or don't always agree and the administration gets their way.
Take the decision the administration made this morning on military
policy, which was contrary to the vote we took just this week on the
appropriations process.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Carbajal).
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I want to thank all of my colleagues for
their leadership and work on this important amendment to strike this
harmful rider, to prevent implementation of the National Ocean Policy.
The National Ocean Policy ensures we are able to implement marine
planning efforts based on management components of the National Ocean
Policy. It also allows coordination between Federal agencies to make
sure they are working in a collaborative manner to improve our ocean's
health.
This brings all stakeholders together, including conservationists,
fishermen, scientists, shipping companies, and those who live and work
in our ocean communities, and it will allow them to have a voice in
finding solutions for effective management of our oceans.
Healthy sustainable ecosystems and economic growth are not mutually
exclusive. That is why we need to make sure we strike this harmful
rider.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from Maine has expired.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I will just say, the usurpation by the
administrative branch of government over Congress happens with both
Republican and Democratic administrations. I remember someone standing
up and saying: Well, if Congress won't do it, I have a pen and a phone.
This is Congress surrendering our responsibility, and even though you
might like the outcome of what they do, it is the wrong thing to do,
and Congress needs to stand up at times and take back our
responsibility than just saying: Well, I don't really like the way it
was done, but I like the policy, so I will just support it. And that is
what we are doing here. That is the problem with the National Ocean
Policy.
Again, I would encourage the supporters of this, and who knows, I
might be one of them, to bring it to Congress. Let's debate it. Let's
have a good healthy debate on this floor. Go through the committee
process, go through the regular order, and then it is something that we
might be able to support in the appropriations process.
Other than that, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I
move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's
amendment to support the growth of vibrant coastal economies and
creation of fisheries and agriculture jobs.
The National Ocean Policy is helping agencies and States collaborate
to reduce illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and one can
just take a look that the ocean policy supports almost 2 million
fisheries-related jobs in our country and $5.3 billion in commercial
fish landings, as well as enhanced tourism, and the National Ocean
Policy doesn't cost us anything.
I just want to remind people that our country currently imports 91
percent of consumed seafood, with half coming from foreign agriculture.
So this policy is extraordinarily important.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Cicilline) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
rise today to speak in strong support of the amendment offered by my
colleague, Congresswoman Pingree, which would strike the harmful
provision that undermines the importance of the National Ocean Policy.
For over 7 years, the National Ocean Policy has helped guide ocean
management through spurring coordination among government agencies.
Ocean planning and coordination is an important aspect in supporting
economic growth, protecting coastal habitats, and strengthening coastal
communities.
The National Ocean Policy does not create any regulations, supersede
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.
Throughout the northeast, the Regional Ocean Council allows our
States to pool resources and businesses to have a strong voice in
decisions that will impact their communities and facilitate
coordination with Federal partners.
I am proud to say that the Northeast Regional Ocean Council is the
first in the Nation to release a draft regional ocean plan. My home
State of Rhode Island, the ocean State, has benefited greatly from the
National Ocean Policy. With help from NOP, the Block Island Wind Farm
project was successfully completed and today is capable of powering an
estimated 17,000 homes.
At a time when our oceans are facing significant challenges and
changes, maintaining coordination and planning is necessary in
continuing to strengthen our country's coastal communities and ocean
industries. Allowing Federal agencies to coordinate implementation of
over 100 ocean laws and giving State and local governments a voice in
the ocean planning process is smart policy, and I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment and strike this ill-advised provision.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the establishment of a National Ocean Policy was a
landmark step for our country. I particularly want to commend Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island for his leadership on this issue.
Ocean planning just makes sense, as we have seen in Rhode Island
during implementation of our Special Area Management Plan. Instead of
haphazard policymaking or turning the ocean into a political football,
we brought all stakeholders to the table, commercial and recreational
fishermen, energy development companies, conservationists, and other
local interests.
The National Ocean Policy builds on this type of collaboration. It is
a bottom-up approach, and it empowers local communities who use our
oceans.
I want to echo the words also of my colleague, the Congressman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), in support of this amendment, and I urge
my colleagues to allow this forward-thinking approach to continue. I
thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman so much for coming to
the floor tonight, and I want to thank all of our colleagues who have
spoken out so eloquently on the importance of National Ocean Policy in
supporting the Pingree, et al. amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. 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 gentlewoman from Maine will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Kihuen

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 55
printed in House Report 115-259.

[[Page H6446]]

Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Chair, 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 326, strike lines 1 through 7.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Kihuen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes language in the bill
that would prohibit the closure of the Yucca Mountain project, which
includes the storage of high-level nuclear waste in my district.
As you may know, in 1987, Nevada was targeted as our Nation's nuclear
waste dump through the ``Screw Nevada'' bill. In the 30 years since the
bill passed, Congress has wasted $3.7 billion of taxpayer money.
Yucca Mountain sits in a seismically active area less than 100 miles
away from Las Vegas, which holds an urban area with over 2 million
residents. Mr. Chairman, just last week, there was an earthquake 33
miles away from Yucca Mountain. This place is not safe for our nuclear
waste.
Moreover, the city sees tens of thousands of visitors traveling to
Las Vegas each and every year, many of whom are your constituents from
your districts. In 2016 alone, over 40 million visitors traveled to Las
Vegas.
I have grave concerns with the transportation of nuclear waste to
Yucca Mountain should this project continue against the will of my
constituents. This project will not just impact my constituents. It
impacts constituents in 329 congressional districts in 44 different
States and Washington, D.C. Putting a nuclear repository in our
backyard means that this high-level nuclear waste must travel through
your backyards first.
Your constituents will see high-level nuclear waste transported
through their communities on rail and truck. A simple car crash or
train derailment would leave your constituents at risk and cost our
taxpayers more money to clean up the mess.
As it stands, Mr. Chairman, this transportation plan also damages our
national security and the ability of the Nevada Test and Training
Range, the largest air and ground range in the contiguous United
States, to meet and train our servicemembers.

{time} 2215

Mr. Chairman, I have been to Yucca Mountain. I have driven through
the desert that is home to the bighorn sheep and desert tortoises and
ancient petroglyphs and relics of the westward expansion. It is clear
that reopening Yucca Mountain threatens the health and safety of
Nevadans and Americans from across the country.
Our State, which has no nuclear energy-producing facilities, should
not be the dumping ground for the rest of the country's nuclear waste.
And the bottom line is this: If any of my colleagues would support this
bill to bring Yucca Mountain nuclear waste to our State, then I am sure
you support bringing it to your State. I am sure we can find a location
in your State, and I would love to work with you on that. I am sure you
wouldn't like your neighbors bringing their trash to your backyard.
Don't bring it to my backyard either. Don't bring it to my
constituents. Don't bring it to Nevada.
I urge your support for my amendment. Prevent billions and billions
of dollars, taxpayer dollars, being wasted by continuing to pursue the
Yucca Mountain project.
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 (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Idaho is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that they have
brought a lot of nuclear waste to the State of Idaho. We process it
there. It was Rocky Flats that was, they say, cleaned up. It wasn't
cleaned up; it was moved to Idaho because we got most of their stuff
there. That is kind of what happens.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I think we all
understand why my colleagues from Nevada oppose Yucca Mountain, their
position on Yucca Mountain; however, I cannot support this amendment.
It is time to move forward with the Yucca licensing process.
The previous administration ignored the law. I repeat that--ignored
the law. Ignoring our obligation to take responsibility for this spent
fuel, and breaking trust with 32 States stopped this process in its
tracks.
I don't think I have to state why that happened. It wasn't because of
science or anything else. We all know why they stopped the licensing
process at Yucca Mountain.
The decision has already cost taxpayers $6 billion in claims, and the
Department of Energy estimates at least another $24 billion in claims.
This administration has taken swift action to put us back on track,
and the budget request proposed in this bill includes $150 million for
Yucca licensing efforts. Licensing efforts will continue to involve
experts in geochemistry, hydrology, geology, seismology, volcanology,
and more to ensure that Yucca Mountain, already one of the most studied
pieces of land on Earth--I would say the most studied piece of land on
Earth. There were 52 or 53 National Academy of Sciences studies on
Yucca Mountain that have been done. But it will get a careful review
from all aspects of its license applications.
Once that application is finished, all Members of this body and of
the Senate will have the opportunity to decide whether we move forward
to construct and use the facility. But killing the process at this
point is shortsighted, and, therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), my esteemed colleague.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the sentiments of my
colleague from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen) by making one thing perfectly clear:
Nevadans are completely against becoming the Nation's nuclear dumping
ground. And make no mistake, that is exactly what this appropriations
bill does.
Without Mr. Kihuen's amendment, of which I am proud to be a
cosponsor, Congress will tie the hands of this administration by
explicitly prohibiting, even considering, closing Yucca Mountain or
conducting a technical review before licensing activities begin.
You heard that right. The underlying bill forbids any funds from
being used to conduct activities that preclude Yucca Mountain from
becoming the Nation's dumping ground for radioactive waste, no matter
the science, no matter the evidence.
And we already have the evidence that bringing America's nuclear
waste to Yucca is bad for Nevadans and bad for Americans. We know that
Yucca is unsafe for nuclear waste because it is seismically active and
sits above an aquifer. And with 70,000 metric tons of radioactive waste
through my district and through the heart of Las Vegas, those visitors
from all across the country and the world will be exposed.
Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say in response: Then change
the law. The law is that Yucca Mountain is the waste repository for
high-level nuclear waste. All we are asking is to continue the
licensing process.
As I said during my opening statement, Congress will have a chance to
vote on whether to proceed with the construction of this facility. That
is the reality. But we have got to get off the dime and start moving
and handling this nuclear waste or it is going to cost us billions and
billions and billions more.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 56 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56
printed in House Report 115-259.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H6447]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division D, before the short title, insert
the following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Corps of
Engineers-Civil--Investigations'', and increasing the amount
made available for the same account, by $3,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am going to take this opportunity
just to show this picture to my colleagues on the floor of the House
and the headline that says: ``Urban Flooding in Houston is on the
Rise.''
I clearly just used the city of Houston by coincidence, but I will
tell you that this is what we are facing, really, across America.
The opening sentence of the article says: ``Before you can fix a
problem, you need to know what's causing it.''
My amendment is just that. My amendment--as I thank Chairman Simpson
and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work on this legislation in doing
the best that we can under the circumstances of trying to preserve the
balance--speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' investigations account by redirecting $3 million for
increased funding for postdisaster watershed assessment studies, like
the one that has been contemplated in many areas around the country.
As the Federal agency that collects and studies basic information
pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed
studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor and flood and
storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a
critical role in building, maintaining, and expanding the most critical
of the Nation's infrastructure.
When questioning the Army Corps of Engineers about a certain area in
my community covering a number of bayous, which we are called The Bayou
City--Sims Bayou, Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting
Bayou, and Clear Creek Bayou--it is the same all over the Nation: the
Army Corps of Engineers said they need to study the issue to know how
to best resolve it.
My amendment is just that. It is resources to be directed to ensure
that we are allowed to study issues so that we can focus the dollars
correctly as we attempt to work collaboratively with our local
communities.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I make this point:
such a study is certainly needed, given the frequency and severity of
historic-level flood events in many parts around our Nation and in the
area in which I live.
On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in
the Houston area over a 12-hour period.
Let me be very mindful, this is not an earmark. It simply says that
we should have the resources to study these issues so that we can
direct moneys in the right way.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks by
indicating that I believe this particular amendment will be helpful in
general to, in essence, provide funding for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' investigations account and ensuring that a postdisaster
watershed assessment can result.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Ms. Kaptur in particular. We have
spoken about this for probably over a 2-year period. I think the very
fact that my particular area can be cited as an example of what happens
when you have urban flooding is just an example.
Over this past summer, we know that we have had some serious loss of
life when rivers have overflowed or areas where water is and people
have been recreating have overflowed, and so the idea of saving lives
is part of my amendment as well.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur
for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment
to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that
they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers ``Investigations'' account by redirecting $3 million
for increased funding for post-disaster watershed assessment studies,
like the one that is being contemplated for the Houston/Harris County
metropolitan area.
As the federal agency that collects and studies basic information
pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed
studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor, and flood and
storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a
critical role in the building, maintaining, and expanding of the most
critical of the nation's infrastructure.
We understand this very well in my home state of Texas and the
Eighteenth Congressional District that I represent.
The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the Harris County
Flood Control District since 1937 to reduce the risk of flooding within
Harris County.
Current projects include 6 federal flood risk management projects:
Sims Bayou, Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou,
and Clear Creek.
In addition to these ongoing projects, the Army Corps of Engineers
operates and maintains the Addicks and Barker (A&B) Detention Dams in
northwest Harris County.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased that the bill provides that the Secretary of
the Army may initiate up to six new study starts during fiscal year
2018, and that five of those studies are to consist of studies where
the majority of the benefits are derived from flood and storm damage
reduction or from navigation transportation savings.
I am optimistic that one of those new study starts will be the
Houston Regional Watershed Assessment Flood Risk Management Feasibility
study.
Such a study is certainly needed given the frequency and severity of
historic-level flood events in recent years in and around the Houston
metropolitan area.
On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in
the Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several areas
exceeding the 100 to 500 year flood event record.
The areas that experience these historic rainfalls were west of I-45,
north of I-10, and Greens Bayou.
Additionally, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over the
Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in just 14 hours.
The purpose of the Houston Regional Watershed Assessment is to
identify risk reduction measures and optimize performance from a multi-
objective systems performance perspective of the regional network of
nested and intermingled watersheds, reservoir dams, flood flow
conveyance channels, storm water detention basins, and related Flood
Risk Management (FRM) infrastructure.
Special emphases of the study, which covers 22 primary watersheds
within Harris County's 1,756 square miles, will be placed on extreme
flood events that exceed the system capacity resulting in impacts to
asset conditions/functions and loss of life.
Mr. Chair, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,015 homes were
flooded and 8 persons died; during the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400
homes were flooded and 8 deaths recorded.
The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at
$3 billion; the 2016 estimate is being compiled and is estimated to be
well above $2 billion.
Mr. Chair, minimizing the risk of flood damage to the Houston and
Harris County metropolitan area, the nation's 4th largest, is a matter
of national significance because the region is one of the nation's
major technology, energy, finance, export and medical centers:
1. Port of Houston is the largest bulk port in the world;
2. Texas Medical Center is a world renowned teaching, research and
treatment center;
3. Houston is home to the largest conglomeration of foreign bank
representation and second only to New York City as home to the most
Fortune 500 companies; and
4. The Houston Watershed Assessment study area sits within major
Hurricane Evacuation arteries for the larger Galveston Gulf Coast
region.
I ask my colleagues to join me and support Jackson Lee Amendment No.
56.
I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work in
shepherding this bill to the floor.

[From the Houston Public Media]

Urban Flooding in Houston Is on the Rise

(By Marissa Cummings)

Before you can fix a problem, you need to know what's
causing it.

[[Page H6448]]

Dr. Sam Brody, Professor at A&M Galveston, is doing exactly
that.
He focuses on urban flooding and says Houston is the poster
child.
``The bigger driver of this urban flood problem is human
development, it's the spread of impervious surfaces and I
calculated the Houston region increased its pavement by 25
percent over a 15 year period from 1996 to 2010,'' says
Brody.
He is also contributing to national research that will help
alleviate urban flooding across the U.S.
Stephen Costello, Houston's Flood Czar, agrees with Brody's
assessment.
Part of the solution he says is investing in innovative
infrastructure.
``But there has to be a commitment on the part of the
community to invest in infrastructure,'' Costello says. ``And
that's what the voters should be looking at saying `OK, so
let's make sure we continue to invest in the infrastructure,'
and that's where the public needs to get involved.''
Although, we cannot stop flooding from happening, Costello
says we need to mitigate and reduce the risk.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 115-259 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Griffith of Virginia.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Takano of California.
Amendment No. 23 by Mr. King of Iowa.
Amendment No. 38 by Ms. Castor of Florida.
Amendment No. 39 by Mr. Norcross of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 44 by Ms. Esty of Connecticut.
Amendment No. 52 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
Amendment No. 54 by Ms. Pingree of Maine.
Amendment No. 56 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 107,
noes 314, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 416]

AYES--107

Abraham
Allen
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Biggs
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Cheney
Comer
Cramer
Culberson
Davidson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Flores
Franks (AZ)
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Harris
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCaul
McKinley
Meadows
Messer
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Norman
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rothfus
Rouzer
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Smith (MO)
Stewart
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yoho
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOES--314

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crawford
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Emmer
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gianforte
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Handel
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Hurd
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCarthy
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nunes
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Russell
Rutherford
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (IA)

NOT VOTING--12

Aderholt
Blum
Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Loudermilk
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Royce (CA)
Ryan (OH)
Scalise

{time} 2248

Mrs. BLACK, Messrs. RICE, HOLDING, TIPTON, GUTHRIE, ROSKAM, and EMMER
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FERGUSON, BROOKS of Alabama, JENKINS of West Virginia, PERRY,
MESSER, CARTER of Georgia, and GARRETT changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 416.

[[Page H6449]]

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Griffith

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Griffith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116,
noes 309, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 417]

AYES--116

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Babin
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Cheney
Collins (GA)
Comer
Cramer
Crawford
Davidson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Flores
Franks (AZ)
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Harper
Harris
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McKinley
Meadows
Messer
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Norman
Olson
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Smith (MO)
Stewart
Taylor
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--309

Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Amodei
Arrington
Bacon
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Emmer
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gianforte
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Handel
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Hurd
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nunes
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Palazzo
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Russell
Rutherford
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder

NOT VOTING--8

Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Napolitano
Ryan (OH)
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia) (during the vote). There is
1 minute remaining.

{time} 2253

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Takano

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Takano) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. All Members are reminded we are in a 2-minute vote
series. Please stay close to the floor.
This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 236, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 418]

AYES--191

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Farenthold
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Granger
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Matsui
McCaul
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Nolan
Norman
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--236

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman

[[Page H6450]]

Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Capuano
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Norcross
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Napolitano
Scalis

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2257

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 418, I mistakenly voted
``yes'' when I intended to vote ``no.''

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 419]

AYES--178

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Ratcliffe
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)

NOES--249

Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Ellison
Emmer
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gianforte
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Hunter
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
LaHood
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Neal
Newhouse
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Napolitano
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2300

Messrs. GAETZ and JONES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H6451]]

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 420]

AYES--181

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crist
Crowley
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)

NOES--246

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Beatty
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Esty (CT)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Napolitano
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2303

Mr. WELCH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Norcross

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Norcross) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 421]

AYES--186

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crist
Crowley
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)

NOES--241

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta

[[Page H6452]]

Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Esty (CT)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Napolitano
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2306

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 44 Offered by Ms. Esty of Connecticut

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. Esty) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 224, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 422]

AYES--203

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)

NOES--224

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Beatty
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Valadao
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Napolitano
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2309

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page H6453]]

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 423]

AYES--180

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--247

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Cramer
Crawford
Crist
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Ruppersberger
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Napolitano
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2312

Ms. KAPTUR changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 54 Offered by Ms. Pingree

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maine
(Ms. Pingree) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 424]

AYES--192

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--235

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson

[[Page H6454]]

Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Napolitano
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2315

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 56 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 425]

AYES--234

Abraham
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Farenthold
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Granger
Graves (LA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Hurd
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Marchant
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Olson
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Trott
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walker
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)

NOES--192

Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Cheney
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walters, Mimi
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--7

Costello (PA)
Cummings
Hollingsworth
Jeffries
Napolitano
Scalise
Torres

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2320

Messrs. THOMAS J. ROONEY of Florida, KATKO, HIGGINS of Louisiana,
JENKINS of West Virginia, and MOONEY of West Virginia changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 57 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Walker). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 57 printed in House Report 115-259.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 H6455]]

the amount made available for the same account, by
$100,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman and the
ranking member of the subcommittee for this very critical work.
My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' construction account by redirecting $100 million
for increased funding for critical construction projects like those
projects that are current and future projects throughout the Nation.
As a Federal agency that collects and studies basic information
pertaining to river and harbor, and flood and storm damage reduction,
it is important that the Army Corps of Engineers and the construction
unit have the funding to focus its resources around the Nation again.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a critical role in the
building, maintaining, and expanding of the most critical of the
Nation's infrastructures.
The Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
has an important responsibility, and it is to ensure the safety of the
Nation's waterways.
Some of these waterways are in and around many of our States,
particularly in the State of Texas. Not only do we have a concept of
bayous, but, for example, we are surrounded in many parts by the Gulf.
We have an enormous amount of water in rivers, and the Army Corps of
Engineers is particularly important as it relates to flooding.
But we have seen flooding across America. So this particular
amendment is to ensure that resources are there as Americans face
unusual flooding that has been occurring over the last decades.
I will give you an example. During May 2015, in the Houston flood,
3,015 homes were flooded and eight people died. During the April 2016
Houston flood, 5,400 homes were flooded and eight deaths were recorded.
The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at $3
billion.
I want my colleagues to know that this amendment is not for a region
or an area. It is really to help the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by simply thanking the
committee and staff and, again, reminding individuals that we can save
lives through the work of the Army Corps of Engineers in stopping
flooding that impacts not only my region of the country, but really
across the country.
I conclude with one final statement: We in our community are entering
hurricane season. This will be a very important amendment as we enter
hurricane season all over the Nation.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur
for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment
to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that
they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers ``Construction'' account by redirecting $100 million
for increased funding for critical construction projects, like those
current and future projects proposed for the Houston/Harris County
metropolitan area.
As the federal agency that collects and studies basic information
pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed
studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor, and flood and
storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer plays a
critical role in the building, maintaining, and expanding the most
critical of the nation's infrastructure.
We understand this very well in my home state of Texas and the
Eighteenth Congressional District that I represent.
The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the Harris County
Flood Control District since 1937 to reduce the risk of flooding within
Harris County.
Current projects include 6 federal flood risk management projects:
1. Sims Bayou
2. Greens Bayou
3. Brays Bayou
4. White Oak Bayou
5. Hunting Bayou, and
6. Clear Creek.
In addition to these ongoing projects, the Army Corps of Engineers
operates and maintains the Addicks and Barker (A&B) Detention Dams in
northwest Harris County.
Such a study is certainly needed given the frequency and severity of
historic-level flood events in recent years in and around the Houston
metropolitan area, it is clear that much more needs to be done to
minimize the vulnerability of the nation's 4th largest metropolitan
area and economic engine from the flood damage.
On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in
the Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several areas
exceeding the 100 to 500 year flood event record.
The areas that experienced these historic rain falls were west of I-
45, north of I-10, and Greens Bayou.
Additionally, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over the
Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in just 14 hours.
Mr. Chair, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,015 homes were
flooded and 8 persons died; during the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400
homes were flooded and 8 deaths recorded.
The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at
$3 billion; the 2016 estimate is being compiled and is estimated to be
well above $2 billion.
Mr. Chair, minimizing the risk of flood damage to the Houston and
Harris County metropolitan area, the nation's 4th largest, is a matter
of national significance because the region is one of the nation's
major technology, energy, finance, export and medical centers:
1. Port of Houston is the largest bulk port in the world;
2. Texas Medical Center is a world renowned teaching, research and
treatment center;
3. Houston is home to the largest conglomeration of foreign bank
representation and second only to New York City as home to the most
Fortune 500 companies; and
4. The Houston Watershed Assessment study area sits within major
Hurricane Evacuation arteries for the larger Galveston Gulf Coast
region.
I ask my colleagues to join me and support Jackson Lee Amendment No.
57.
I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work in
shepherding this bill to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I ask support for the Jackson Lee amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 58 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58
printed in House Report 115-259.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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:

At the end of division D (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for
``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be
used in contravention of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple
amendment that promotes STEM education, which is really a vital part of
the future of this Nation.
In particular, my amendment says: ``None of the funds made available
by this act for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science' may be
used in contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act.''
This amendment was approved and adopted just in the last session.
Twenty years ago, on February 11, we were directed to identify and
address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income
populations.
The Department of Energy ceased to provide equal access in these
opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including
minorities, Native Americans, and women.
Mr. Chairman, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college
students, but only 45 percent of undergraduates

[[Page H6456]]

are STEM degree holders. This large pool of untapped talent is a great
potential source of STEM professional, but it also deprives the United
States of its best minds to be able to help it in the 21st century.
As the Nation's demographics are shifting and now more children under
the age of 1 are minorities, it is critical that we close the gap in
the number of minorities who seek system opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to
be solved. And perhaps one of these days, a minority engineer or
biologist will come up with some of the solutions.
As many have done in the past, the larger point is that we need more
STEM educators and more minorities to qualify them. My amendment turns
our importance to the importance of energy and science education
programs, funded in part by this bill, and will help to ensure that
members of unrepresented communities are not placed at a disadvantage
when it comes to environmental sustainability, preservation, and
health.

{time} 2330

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me take note of some of the colleagues
that I have had the privilege of being neighbors to. NASA's Johnson
Space Center is, if I might say, one of the neighbors of my community,
great respect for the astronauts; Major Bolden, who serves as head of
NASA; and Mae Jemison is my neighbor, the first African-American woman
who went into space. I want more of those individuals coming from our
Nation's schools, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment
that will encourage those in low-income communities and minorities,
Native Americans, and others to join in and support the opportunities
for STEM education.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur
for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment
to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that
they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 58 simply provides that:
``None of the funds made available by this Act for `Department of
Energy--Energy Programs--Science' be used in contravention of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).''
This amendment was approved and adopted in identical form on April
29, 2015, during the 114th Congress as an amendment to H.R. 2028, the
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Act of 2016.
Mr. Chair, twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton
issued Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify
and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income
populations.
The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access in these
opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including
minorities, Native Americans, and women.
Mr. Chair, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college
students, but only 45 percent of undergraduate STEM degree holders.
This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of
STEM professionals.
As the nation's demographics are shifting and now most children under
the age of one are minorities, it is critical that we close the gap in
the number of minorities who seek STEM opportunities.
I encourage Energy Secretary Perry to surpass the commitment of his
predecessors' toward increasing the nation's economic competitiveness
and enabling more of our people to realize their full potential.
Mr. Chair, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to be
solved--and perhaps one of these days a minority engineer or biologist
will come-up with some of the solutions.
The larger point is that we need more STEM educators and more
minorities to qualify for them.
The energy and science education programs funded in part by this bill
will help ensure that members of underrepresented communities are not
placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environmental
sustainability, preservation, and health.
Through education about the importance of environmental
sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and
how citizens can improve their surroundings.
Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also
benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management,
and other related subjects.
The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority
institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
The DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM
fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find
employment.
With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can increase
diversity, provide clean energy options to our most underserved
communities, and help improve their environments, which will yield
better health outcomes and greater public awareness.
But most importantly businesses will have more consumers to whom they
may engage in related commercial activities.
My amendment will help ensure that underrepresented communities are
able to participate and contribute equitably in the energy and
scientific future.
I ask my colleagues to join me and support Jackson Lee Amendment No.
58.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 59
printed in House Report 115-259.
Mr. GOSAR. 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:

At the end of division D (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or
guidance that references or relies on the analysis contained
in--
(1) ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'',
published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon, United States Government, in February 2010;
(2) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in
May 2013 and revised in November 2013;
(3) ``Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and
Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the
Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews'', published by the
Council on Environmental Quality on December 24, 2014 (79
Fed. Reg. 77801);
(4) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in
July 2015;
(5) ``Addendum to the Technical Support Document on Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive
Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the
Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous
Oxide'', published by the Interagency Working Group on Social
Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government, in August
2016; or
(6) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States
Government, in August 2016.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense
amendment that will protect American jobs and the economy by
prohibiting funds from being used to implement the Obama
administration's flawed Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC, valuation. This
job-killing and unlawful guidance sneakily attempts to pave the way for
cap-and-trade-like mandates.
Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap-and-
trade proposals. Knowing that he could not lawfully enact a carbon tax
plan, President Obama attempted to circumvent Congress by playing loose
and fast with the Clean Air Act to unilaterally implement this unlawful
new requirement under the guise of guidance.
The Obama administration continuously used the SCC valuation models,
which can be easily manipulated, to try and justify new job-killing
regulations.
Although President Trump issued an executive order in March to
disband the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, Federal

[[Page H6457]]

agencies continue to work on the SCC valuation.
My amendment is necessary to strengthen the intent of President
Trump's executive order while also ensuring that it is Congress, not
the executive branch, which sets tax and environmental policy.
The committee wisely issued guidance in the bill report to delay the
promulgation of SCC regulations until a new working group is convened.
My amendment explicitly prohibits funds from being used to implement
the deeply flawed Social Cost of Carbon guidance in the bill text.
The House has a clear, consistent, and strong record of opposition to
the Social Cost of Carbon. My colleagues voted in favor of my amendment
in FY17 appropriations by a clear majority of 230-188.
In fact, the House has decisively voted 10 times to block, defund, or
oppose the Social Cost of Carbon since 2013. My amendment ensures this
Chamber's position remains consistent and crystal clear in FY18.
Roger Martella, a self-described lifelong environmentalist and career
environmental lawyer, testified at the May 2015 House Natural Resources
Committee hearing on the revised SCC guidance and the flaws associated
with the Social Cost of Carbon model, stating that the ``'Social Cost
of Carbon' estimates suffer from a number of significant flaws that
should exclude them from the NEPA process.''
Amongst these flaws are, one, that the ``projected costs of carbon
emissions can be manipulated by changing key parameters such as
timeframes, discount rates, and other values that have no relation to a
given project undergoing review.''
Two, ``OMB and the other Federal agencies developed the draft Social
Cost of Carbon estimates without any known peer review or opportunity
for public comment during the development process.''
Three, ``OMB's draft Social Cost of Carbon estimates are based
primarily on global rather than domestic costs and benefits.''
Four, ``there is still considerable uncertainty in many of the
assumptions and data elements used to create the draft Social Cost of
Carbon estimates, such as the damage functions and modeled time
horizons.''
Mr. Martella's testimony was spot on. Congress, not Washington
bureaucrats, should dictate our country's climate change policy. The
sweeping and costly changes that the Social Cost of Carbon metric would
impose are not only misguided and unwise, they are also based on
fundamentally flawed policies that sidestepped Congress, did not go
through the normal regulatory process, and received no public comment.
Worse yet, the model utilized to predict the Social Cost of Carbon
can be easily manipulated to arrive at the desired outcome.
Regardless of one's positions on climate change, my colleagues surely
must respect the constitutional role of the legislative branch and
oppose bureaucratic efforts to circumvent Congress to impose an
extremist environmental agenda that is not based on best available
science.
Congress must provide certainty to business and consumers that the
costly and scientifically bankrupt Social Cost of Carbon valuation will
not creep its way into our regulatory process.
My amendment provides that certainty.
Over the last 2 years, this effort has received support from the
American Energy Alliance, Americans for Limited Government, Americans
for Tax Reform, Arch Coal, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, FreedomWorks, National
Mining Association, the National Taxpayers Union, and Taxpayers
Protection Alliance.
Congress, not anonymous Washington bureaucrats, should dictate our
country's tax and climate change policy. I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment to, once again, block the flawed Social Cost of
Carbon.
I commend the chairman and the committee for their efforts on this
legislation, and I urge support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I 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 think the gentleman has a point of view
that I do not support, but in terms of this amendment, it really is not
necessary. It is redundant. On March 28 of this year, Executive Order
No. 13783, signed by President Donald Trump, has rescinded every one of
the analyses that the gentleman referenced in his proposed amendment.
So this amendment does less than nothing. It has already been dealt
with through executive order.
I would just encourage my colleagues to let's move the agenda along
this evening where we will have significant debate perhaps on other
matters.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because
it is redundant at this point, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate even though President
Trump issued an executive order in March to disband the Interagency
Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Federal agencies
continue to work on the SCC valuation. So I, at the very least, would
expect everybody to support this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 60 Offered by Ms. DelBene

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60
printed in House Report 115-259.
Ms. DelBENE. 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:

At the end of division D, before the short title, insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this division
may be used for the procurement of anchor chain that is not
subject to the restrictions in section 225.7007-1 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. DelBene) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an important
amendment to this year's Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bill. It fixes a serious problem that must be addressed to protect
hardworking Americans in my district and across the country.
Both parties can agree that our Nation should be spending taxpayer
dollars on goods manufactured here at home, not overseas, whenever we
can. Doing so not only supports American jobs in our communities but
also reinforces our national security. Even President Trump called for
strengthening enforcing laws that promote American industry and
American workers. So I hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle
can come together on this issue.
Particularly in these uncertain times, it is imperative that we
protect American production capabilities by supporting U.S.
manufacturers.
Every year since 1991, Congress has included a provision in the
Department of Defense Appropriations bill to require that military
agencies purchase anchor chain from American businesses. For the last 2
years, the House and Senate have supported an amendment of mine
clarifying that this requirement applies to the Army Corps of
Engineers. Unfortunately, the Corps has continued to ignore clear
congressional intent and has made several acquisitions of foreign-made
anchor chain from countries like China and Korea.
Until the Army Corps follows the policy, I will keep fighting to
support U.S. manufacturers and their workers, and I hope the whole
Chamber will join me in this effort.
My amendment strengthens the existing language in this bill to better
protect the critical production capability, support our manufacturing
industry, and put American workers first.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6458]]

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 recognize the underlying bill has
language on this issue, but I understand that the requirement may not
be as comprehensive as my colleague supports. I am concerned that the
amendment before us may have unintended consequences. If my colleague
would withdraw the amendment today, I will commit to working together
as this bill moves through the legislative process to see if we can
address her concerns in a manner acceptable to everyone. Otherwise, I
will have to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the intent of the
gentlewoman's amendment. I am very glad to hear what the gentlewoman is
saying. She is trying to do everything she can to support American-made
products and particularly American-made anchor chain. I would be
willing to work with the chairman and the gentlewoman as the process
goes forward to ensure we purchase American-made products. I just
wanted to express that support. I thank the gentleman for his offer.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman is willing to withdraw
the amendment, we will work together to see if we can solve this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness
to work with me on this important issue and also Representative Kaptur
for her support.
Our Nation can't afford to lose its critical production capability.
We should not allow American workers to be left behind, so I look
forward to working with the gentleman and the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

amendment no. 61 offered by mr. burgess

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61
printed in House Report 115-259.
Mr. BURGESS. 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:

At the end of division D (before the short title) insert
the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this division
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)) with
respect to BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandescent
reflector lamps, and ER incandescent reflector lamps.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) 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 to
prevent the distortion of the free market by the Federal Government.
Since its passage in 2007 of the Energy Independence and Security
Act, I have heard from virtually tens of thousands of constituents
about the language in that act and how it will take away consumer
choice when constituents are deciding which lightbulbs they will use in
their homes. Mr. Chairman, they are right.
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I want to point out this exact
amendment has been accepted for the past 6 years by the House. Three of
those years it was accepted by voice vote. It was included in the
annual appropriations legislation signed into law by President Obama
every year since its first inclusion in 2011, and has been a priority
of the Republican Conference since its adoption into law. It allows
consumers to continue to have a choice and to have a say about what
type of lightbulb they will put into their homes. Congress should fight
to preserve the free market. It is common sense.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, with all the respect I have for Congressman
Burgess, I oppose this damaging rider which would block the Department
of Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency
standards for lightbulbs.
This rider was a bad idea when it was first offered 7 years ago, and
it is even more unsupportable now. Why do I say that? Because every
claim made by proponents of the rider have been proven wrong.
Number one, we have been told, including by Dr. Burgess, that the
energy efficiency standards would ban incandescent lightbulbs. That is
simply false. You can go to the store today and see shelves of modern
energy efficient incandescent lightbulbs that meet the standard, and
they are the same as the old bulbs except they last longer, use less
electricity, and save consumers money.
Then we heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict
consumer choice.

{time} 2345

If you have shopped for lightbulbs lately, which I have, you know
that isn't true. In fact, modern incandescent bulbs, compact
fluorescent lightbulbs, and LEDs of every shape, size, and color are
now available.
Consumers have never had more choice, and the efficiency standard
spurred innovation that dramatically expanded options for consumers. I
am amazed how many shelves lightbulbs now occupy in the stores.
Critics of the efficiency standards claim 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 per
year. That is pretty good. That is $12.5 billion in savings for
consumers and businesses nationwide every year. That is $12.5 billion.
But this rider threatens those savings. That is why consumer groups
have consistently opposed this rider.
Here is the reality. The 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards
for lightbulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to
enjoy 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 lightbulbs in the United States that violate the
efficiency standards. That is unfair to domestic manufacturers who have
invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make efficient bulbs
that meet the standards.
Why on Earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign
manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalize U.S. manufacturers who
are following our laws?
But it gets even worse. The mere existence of this rider poses and
additional threat to U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 Energy
bill required the Department of Energy to establish updated lightbulb
efficiency standards by January 1 of this year. It also provided that,
if final updated standards are not issued by then, a more stringent
backstop standard of 45 lumens per watt automatically takes effect, and
incandescent lightbulbs currently cannot meet this backstop standard.
Well, we are well into 2017, and the Burgess lightbulb rider has
remained on the books. So, earlier this year, the Department of Energy
had to go forward with finalizing the 45-lumens-per-watt backstop
standard.
Approving this rider year after year is ultimately what blocked the
Department of Energy from issuing the required efficiency standards in
time to avoid such stringent measures. Ironically, it is this rider
that would effectively ban the incandescent lightbulb in 2020.
The Burgess rider directly threatens existing lightbulb manufacturing
jobs in the United States. 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 consumers, and worsen pollution.

[[Page H6459]]

It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology. It is time to
listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency
advocates who all agree that this rider is harmful.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Burgess
lightbulb rider, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I will disagree on the economics that were
just presented. But apart from the economics of the lightbulb mandate,
that is, in fact, only part of the story.
With the extreme expansion of Federal powers undertaken in the last
administration, when the Democrats were in charge of Congress for 4
years, Americans have just now begun to see how far the Constitution's
Commerce Clause has been manipulated from its original intent. The
lightbulb mandate is a perfect example of this manipulation.
The Commerce Clause was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a
limitation on Federal authority, not a catchall in order to allow for
any topic to be regulated by Washington. Indeed, it is clear that the
Founding Fathers never intended for 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.
Mr. Chairman, in December of 2007, when this bill was first passed,
the columnist George Will observed on television one Sunday morning
that it is the job of the Federal Government to defend the borders and
deliver the mail. But instead of keeping up with those two tasks, we
instead decided to ban the incandescent bulb. It was wrong in 2007. It
is wrong in 2017.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62
printed in House Report 115-259.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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:

At the end of division D (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 1 percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to begin by
thanking the committee for their hard work on this appropriations bill.
Every year, I come to this floor through the appropriations process
to present amendments calling for 1 percent across-the-board cuts. So
many years I have come down here to talk about how the spending
continues to increase. Indeed, our budget does increase. But I have to
tell you, the chairman and his team have done an incredible job this
year.
The outlays that we see in this bill this year are $209 million--
think about that--less than the budget authority from last year. That
is significant, and it should be recognized and should be praised,
because that is the type of work that we need to see.
Now, I do continue to present the 1 percent across-the-board
amendment because we are facing a time in our Nation where 1 percent
makes a difference, just as we are seeing from the good work that they
have done.
Passing this amendment for the 1 percent across-the-board spending
reduction would save us an additional $376 million. It is important to
do because our Nation is facing $20 trillion in debt. Because of that,
we have to ask ourselves: Is it important to spend some of the money
that is being spent on programs that we see taking place in the
Department of Energy?
It causes us to look at these programs and talk about priorities,
where we should spend those precious dollars that are not Federal
dollars. They are taxpayer dollars that are coming out of the pockets
of hardworking men and women.
Indeed, we have, many times, quoted Admiral Mullins' comments from
July 6, 2010, that the greatest threat to our Nation's security is our
Nation's debt. Because of that, I recognize and applaud the good work
that has been done, but I encourage support for my amendment and the
continued honing and prioritizing of what takes the taxpayer money that
is spent by this body.
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, let me first say that I compliment the
gentlewoman for her consistency. She is a true budget hawk in trying to
make sure that we ultimately balance this budget. It is tough work to
do that.
We have actually, as she mentioned, reduced spending in this bill
over last year. Could we reduce it another 1 percent across the board?
The problem is we have to choose some priority in the bill.
The highest priority we had was our Nation's defense, the nuclear
weapons program. Even though the overall bill is down $206 million, the
defense activities are actually up nearly a billion dollars.
We then have to look at the infrastructure of this Nation and the
fact that we have deteriorating infrastructure, and Congress has told
us that each year we have to meet what is called the WRDA target. We
have to spend with the Army Corps of Engineers to meet the
infrastructure of our harbors, dams, and inland waterways and restore
those things, because it is very important to our commerce and
something the Congress supports greatly.
So when we have had to increase the Army Corps of Engineers funding
over what was spent last year and then we have had to increase weapons
activity, that means the Department of Energy has been significantly
reduced over what they were last year.
We have had to make some very hard choices. We have cut the EERE,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, program in half from $2 billion
to $1 billion, roughly.
We have had to eliminate the ARPA-E program, a program that I happen
to support, but we just don't have the money for it.
We have had to eliminate the loan guarantee program, a program that,
again, I support, but we just don't have the money for it.
So we have made some significant reductions while prioritizing basic
science research and those types of activities within the Department of
Energy. I think we have done a good job, given a pretty skinny budget.
We have made tough choices. That is okay. That is what we do all the
time in the Appropriations Committee.
The reality is, if we are ever going to balance this budget, if
anybody looks at the numbers, right now we are spending about 70
percent of our total Federal budget on mandatory programs. We have been
reducing discretionary spending over the years. As a portion of the
total budget, it has gone down every year.
If we don't get a hold of mandatory spending--Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security, and interest on the debt--within 10 years we will have
enough money for our mandatory programs and defense, nothing else--
zero.
We are not going to balance this budget by reducing discretionary
spending. Keeping control of it, you bet, that is what we have been
doing. That is what the Appropriations Committee has been doing since
2010, or earlier. We have actually been reducing spending. It is very
important that we do that. But we have to get a hold of mandatory
spending if we are going to balance the budget.
So while I appreciate what the gentlewoman is trying to do, I agree
with her, we need to balance this budget. We need to balance this
budget. Unfortunately, this is not the way to do it.
So I have to oppose this amendment and hope my colleagues would
oppose it also.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H6460]]

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you every comment that Mr.
Simpson made about the mandatory spending is something that I agree
with. Yes, we have to do that. But just as we in Congress have reduced
our Legislative Branch budget by about 20 percent over the last few
years, and just as our Appropriations Committee has done a wonderful
job of pulling back on the spending that is done to discretionary, we
need to give that same challenge to the bureaucracy, to those rank-and-
file Federal employees and challenge them to go save a penny on a
dollar out of what they are appropriated. Find a way to yield savings
to the work that they do and help us with this process to rein in
spending.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage support of the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63
printed in House Report 115-259.
Mr. PERRY. 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:

At the end of division D (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the final rule published by
the Secretary of Energy entitled ``Energy Conservation
Program: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps'' published on January 5, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg.
1426).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the Appropriations
Committee for the extraordinary work they have done in a very limited
amount of time.
This amendment would prohibit the use of funds to implement or
enforce the final rule published by the former Secretary of Energy,
entitled: ``Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps.''
Mr. Chairman, this is simply an example of too much Washington, too
much government. I am sure it was well-intended, but I am not sure if
the good idea fairies in Washington really realized fully what they
did.

{time} 0000

Certainly we want to have test standards and so on and so forth, but
the one-size-fits-all approach that comes out of Washington misses some
folks and can cause some irreparable damage to businesses all around
the country.
And all around the country there are small manufacturers that are
trying to build some air-conditioners. In particular, there is one in
the district that I represent that builds custom-made air-conditioners
and heat pumps for skyscrapers and high-rise buildings.
If I can picture the scene, the original units are put in when the
buildings are being constructed. So there are cranes available, there
are openings in the walls and in the structure, and they just move the
stuff in, and then they close it all up.
In 10, 15, 20, 30 years later when they go to replace it, well, the
walls are in, the windows are in, the people are in, the offices are
in. There is no crane available, and they have to piece this thing
together through the elevator and into the closet. So this company,
like other ones around the country, make custom-made ones, each one for
a specific application--each one.
But the Department of Energy, and this rule in particular, says that
this company must test each model that they make for these efficiency
standards--each one--an arduous test taking months, if not years, in
documentation for one application.
Again, I am sure the Department of Energy was well-intended. However,
this rule is going to put a business out. They work in the city of
York, a fine city in central Pennsylvania, right downtown where we want
manufacturing to happen, where people can walk to work. These folks are
trying. They are struggling to survive in this economy, and the only
thing that is going to put them out is this regulation, Mr. Chairman.
While well-intended, it is not going to be helpful. These folks are
trying to do the right thing, but the government is getting in the way.
Believe it or not, Consumer Reports actually recommended against
buying some of these systems under this testing rule because the
systems had higher costs and poor repair records.
Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, the free market actually fixes most
of this stuff. Most of us want to buy more efficient things that are
cheaper, that are easier to maintain, and have a better record. This is
Consumer Reports talking. This isn't Perry's record. This is Consumer
Reports talking.
Let us not put this company out of business. Let us not put these
companies out of business. Let us be responsible. I urge passage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this particular
amendment.
I say to the gentleman: For the company in your district, the
regulations include the opportunity for waiver. And I would hope that
the company in your district would be able to work that out.
The amendment that the gentleman proposes seeks to prohibit the
Department of Energy from implementing testing procedures for the
energy efficiency standards set for heat pumps and air-conditioners.
I, as the consumer, whether I am buying a heat pump, a furnace, a
refrigerator--and every American who now shops looks for those--that is
like the sticker. That is what you really look for, and you want to
know how much you are going to pay every year for what that product
will cost you for energy. And the better product you have, and you are
able to put that on a label and it is verified by the Department of
Energy, that helps sales.
The original standards that were created were supported and have been
supported by the Edison Electric Institute, the association which
represents all investor-owned utilities. The amendment, by the way, is
opposed by the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
which represents manufacturers of HVAC systems that employ over 1.3
million Americans. And industry opposes the amendment,
environmentalists oppose it, because it would cost an average--a
cumulative cost to Americans of $12.2 billion over 30 years.
So there is a lot of opposition to this. It is important to note that
these standards were negotiated in a collaborative process by industry
groups, environmental nonprofits, and consumer advocates with the
Department of Energy. A rider like this one damages the integrity of
the negotiated rulemaking process, which is designed to provide
certainty and voice to the industry and education and information to
consumers.
Test procedures are simple and important. The Department of Energy
develops them to make sure companies are rating their product
accurately so consumers don't get stuck paying higher bills than they
expect, so you know what you buy.
Let's be clear. This amendment would effectively nullify the
efficiency standards for heating and cooling systems, in spite of the
fact that these standards project that it will save billions of dollars
over the period that they are applied, and that is equivalent to having
1 million fewer homes connected to the grid over the same period. It is
an enormous savings.
If there is a particular company that is unfairly impacted by these
rules, there are outlets for regulatory relief through waivers, as I
have mentioned, and this amendment would neuter

[[Page H6461]]

those standards and thereby allow cheap imports to undercut American
products by exploiting the lack of standards.
We don't want to go back to that. I look for those yellow labels. To
protect American manufacturers, to save Americans money on their
utility bills, and to reduce air pollution, I strongly oppose this
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
The gentleman may have a good intention in offering this amendment,
but I don't think you want to take away the benefits to the American
people for one company in your district when that company, in fact, can
negotiate and receive a waiver. I would just ask my colleagues to vote
``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement that the regulations
have to be in place. I, too, like the yellow sticker, just like she
does; and somehow the yellow stickers are in place without this new
rule. They are there right now. You have been seeing them for years.
This is new--this is a new regulation.
I would contend that, yeah, the manufacturers have gotten on board
and they have negotiated this rule. Because what choice did they have,
right?
The Federal Government is going to regulate. They are going to do it.
You either get in the game and play ball or you know what happens to
the bat. Right? They didn't want to be in that position, so they took
the best they could.
I am telling you and it is my contention that the free market is
going to figure this out because we all want the most efficient, the
most cost-effective, and the most maintenance-effective, whether it is
an air-conditioner, whether it is a car, or whether it is an electric
toothbrush.
We don't need the Federal Government telling us to do it. By the way,
this company has applied for a waiver, years in the making. They
literally have the president of the company spending almost, he said,
85 percent of his time dealing with Federal regulation compliance.
The president of the company is the guy who wants to hire these 125
people, go make sales, and produce things. Instead, all he is doing is
dealing with the Federal Government. Somehow, someway we all got to
this point.
It feels pretty cool in the Capitol right now, right? It feels pretty
cool in the House of Representatives.
The yellow labels were there before this regulation ever happened.
Mr. Chairman, I ask and urge the Members to vote in favor of the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
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 the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Budd

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64
printed in House Report 115-259.
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Francis Rooney), I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the division D (before the short title),
insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the prevailing
wage requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon
Act).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Act hinders economic growth and
increases the Federal deficit. It imposes enormous burdens, stifles
contractor productivity, ignores skill differences for different jobs,
and imposes rigid craftwork rules.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Davis-Bacon
Act will raise Federal construction costs by $13 billion between 2015
and 2023.
Now, wages are often set at or above the union scale, despite the
fact that only 13 percent of the private construction workforce is even
unionized nationwide, Mr. Chairman.

{time} 0010

The Davis-Bacon wage determinations have also been known to be lower
than the current market rate, which is equally problematic and
especially detrimental for local contractors. It is just erratic.
The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, has repeatedly
criticized DOL's Davis-Bacon wage determination process for its lack of
transparency in the published wage rates and its tendency to gather
erroneous data through unscientific wage surveys.
Repealing the DBA would allow the government to build more
infrastructure and create 155,000 new construction-related jobs at the
very same cost to the taxpayers. In fact, repealing Davis-Bacon would
have saved the Federal Government $10.9 billion, and that was back in
2011.
This amendment would uphold the government's responsibility to
deliver quality infrastructure improvements at the best possible price
to the taxpayers, which is certainly what we owe them. It is imperative
that all levels of government guarantee the general public that their
tax dollars are being spent in the most effective way possible.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Francis Rooney)
for his work on this amendment, and I withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 65 will not be offered.

Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Mitchell

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Perry). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 70 printed in House Report 115-259.
Mr. MITCHELL. 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:

At the end of division D (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to delay the release of the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS) Brandon Road
Study.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as an advocate of the Great
Lakes. It is with that spirit I propose my amendment to prevent funds
to be used to further delay the release of the Brandon Road Study.
Anyone who has spent time in my home State of Michigan or any of the
Great Lakes States knows the beauty and importance of the lakes. In
addition to their majesty, the Great Lakes supply 90 percent of the
United States freshwater supply. Thirty million people live at the
Great Lakes Basin, and they are all impacted by the quality of our
lakes, whether as a water source, source of business, recreational
opportunity, or the lakes' inherent value as a natural wonder. Any risk
to the Great Lakes is a significant problem, no matter how you measure
that risk.
One of the threats facing our lakes is the potential entry of
invasive species, the most pressing of which, at this time, is the
threat of Asian carp entering the Great Lakes.
Asian carp have no natural predators in the lakes, meaning once they
enter the Great Lakes, there is no way to stop their spread. Their
unrestrained growth would disrupt the entire ecosystem.
In addition to the damage to native wildlife in the lakes, the
introduction of Asian carp would damage several multibillion-dollar
industries, including the fishing and boating industries which support
countless jobs in my

[[Page H6462]]

home State of Michigan and the Great Lakes.
Given the threat imposed by invasive species, the Army Corps of
Engineers has been studying the best way to prevent introduction of the
Asian carp into the Great Lakes Basin. Their study, the Brandon Road
Study, was initially slated to be released on February 28 but has been
delayed until further notice.
Delaying this study impedes the ability of all interested parties to
develop a long-term strategy to thwart this threat. The continued
delays create a great risk, yet no reason for delaying that release has
been provided.
In late June, a live Asian carp was caught in the Illinois waterway
about 2 miles below the T.J. O'Brien Lock and Dam, 9 miles from Lake
Michigan. This is the first time an Asian carp has been discovered in
such close proximity to our lakes.
Though further study is necessary to determine how this carp entered
the area, it is an alarming warning that the window is quickly closing
to prevent large-scale devastation to the Great Lakes' ecosystem.
The best way to mitigate the damage of Asian carp in our lakes is to
stop it from happening altogether. For several months, members of the
Great Lakes Task Force have requested the release of the Brandon Road
Study, to no avail. I stand here today to again call on the Army Corps
to release the study, which we have already paid for and they have
conducted.
My amendment would prevent the Corps from using any more money--our
money--to delay the release of the study.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment for the
sake of the Great Lakes and for the well-being of our entire region.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
offered by my friends, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Huizenga and, I have no
doubt, many fellow travelers from the Great Lakes delegation on both
sides of the aisle. I find it somewhat unusual that it is the last
amendment this evening after midnight. I wish it had come up about 6
o'clock on the evening news.
This is an issue we know well, as Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Mitchell, and
certainly our chairman, Mr. Simpson, has heard a great deal about this
now, and our ranking members on the full committee as well.
We introduced a bill last month with the same ultimate effect of
preventing the spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes. The Great
Lakes represent a $7 billion fishery, deeply threatened by these
critters, Asian carp, that shouldn't even be in this country but began
their movement up the Mississippi River when they were brought in to do
bottom cleaning in Mississippi in the special fish tanks that were set
up down there many years ago as bottom feeders. There was some type of
storm and they hopped out. The walls were breached, and they began
their journey up the Mississippi until now. They are within just a few
miles of Lake Michigan.
Just a few weeks ago, a 28-inch Asian carp was caught beyond the
protective barriers, which is a temporary solution, only 9 miles from
Lake Michigan. Yet, even in this time of greatest danger, the Brandon
Road Study, which Congressman Mitchell outlined, which merely
identifies options for preventing Asian carp from reaching the Great
Lakes, has not been released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This amendment would prevent the administration from expending any
more funds to further delay the release of this study for public
comment.
My colleagues should know that this study is already completed. After
working on it for years at a cost of nearly $7 million, it now sits on
a shelf at the Corps, and they are unwilling to release it for reasons
we do not understand.
Asian carp represent a serious economic and environmental threat to
the entire Great Lakes. These mean critters are voracious eaters. They
destroy native species and overwhelm their new ecosystems. They have
gotten into the Ohio River, and they have gotten into rivers near
Peoria. They eat up everything in their sight. They completely upend
native ecosystems, and it is truly terrifying what they will do to our
lakes, as you can see in this photograph. They are prolific, they are
large, and they are predatory.

We should be aggressively pursuing action to prevent the spread of
the Asian carp to the Great Lakes, yet the roadmap to getting there is
locked in bureaucratic purgatory.
Finally, I would like to point out that this is not a partisan issue.
Our substantively similar bill has 15 Republican and 16 Democratic
cosponsors, who represent the vast majority of the Great Lakes
coastline. In these hyperpartisan times, our constituents are united in
their love for the Great Lakes, their desire to protect them, and their
understanding of how vital they are to the future of this country and
continent.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment from all of my
colleagues in order to save the national treasures that are the Great
Lakes.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Mitchell and Congressman Huizenga
for taking the lead this evening from the great Wolverine State--and we
Buckeyes don't often say that, do we--for embracing what is truly
important to all of us, and I urge my colleagues to support the
Mitchell-Huizenga amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen,
I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I would like to support this
amendment, unfortunately, I can't. But, believe me, I understand and
have learned from Ms. Kaptur and the members of the Great Lakes States
when I was chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee. And now she sits on the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee with me, and they have all come and
talked to me about this problem.
This, unfortunately, pits kind of one State against another, and what
I am trying to do is find a solution to this, because I happen to agree
with these individuals that it seems rather silly that we go out and
ask for a report to be done and then can't seem to get it released--not
only the final report, we can't even get a draft report released that
will go out for comment. That doesn't make any sense to me.

{time} 0020

But I know that there are Members who also have concerns about that,
but that is, frankly, why you release a draft report, so that you can
get the comments.
During full committee consideration on the Energy and Water bill, we
discussed a similar amendment that was offered by Ms. Kaptur, my
ranking member, Mr. Joyce, and Mr. Moolenaar; and I committed to them
at the time that I would work with all interested parties and Members
to try to move these efforts forward, and I am happy to reiterate that
commitment now.
What I am asking is if the gentleman will withdraw the amendment,
give me a chance, and I commit to try to get this report out, because I
think it needs to get done, and I think, together, we can convince the
Army Corps and maybe the administration that it needs to get done. So
that would be my request.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, in deference to Mr. Simpson, I will work
with him and others in the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus to see if we
can't move forward on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
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.

[[Page H6463]]

Mitchell) having assumed the chair, Mr. Perry, 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. 3219)
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________