[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 94 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4938-H4956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2019

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                 Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). It is now in order 
to

[[Page H4939]]

consider amendment No. 24 printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  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:

       Page 30, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $325,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $29,250,000)''.
       Page 64, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $325,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, 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, the ARPA-E program first began receiving 
funding through the 2009 Obama stimulus and is currently unauthorized.
  ARPA-E grew out of those years' overly optimistic perception of the 
Federal Government's ability to lead in areas of commercially viable 
energy research and technology, particularly in renewables.
  The obvious problem with this premise is that the government, unlike 
our Nation's industries and corporations, has never been in the 
business of cost-benefit maximization, as other blunders from that 
period, like the Solyndra scandal, demonstrated.
  This is because the Federal Government is competent and accomplished 
in the areas of basic, early-stage scientific research but poorly 
positioned to move research from concept to market. And ARPA-E provides 
even further demonstration of that. The Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development and Related Agencies defunded the program in their 
FY18 draft passed bill.
  The administration and the Republican Study Committee have both 
advocated eliminating this stimulus-era program and have continually 
indicated that the proper role of government in energy research is at 
the level of basic research taking place in existent, well-funded 
programs like the Office of Science and the applied energy research and 
development program.
  Those DOE programs that they point to are more worthy recipients of 
Federal dollars, are effective, and produce results because they focus 
on the right goals.
  For this reason, the administration is also strongly opposed to 
continued funding for the ARPA-E program. The White House stated in its 
fiscal year 2019 budget proposal:

       Appropriations for ARPA-E were only authorized through 2013 
     under the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. In 
     addition, there has been concern about the potential for 
     ARPA-E's efforts to overlap with research and development 
     being carried out, or which should be carried out, by the 
     private sector.
       No new appropriations are requested in 2019. The Department 
     would request reprogramming of prior-year unobligated 
     balances for program closeout activities to ensure full 
     closure of ARPA-E by mid-2020. Any remaining contract 
     closeout and award monitoring activities would be transferred 
     elsewhere within DOE.
       This proposed elimination reflects both a streamlining of 
     Federal activities and a refocusing on the proper Federal 
     role in energy research and development.

  In a May 15 view letter to House Appropriations on the Energy and 
Water bill, the White House stated: ``The Administration is 
disappointed that the bill does not eliminate ARPA-E. The Committee is 
encouraged to explore options to incorporate certain ARPA-E attributes, 
such as cross-cutting research coordination and enhanced flexibility, 
into the Department of Energy's primary research efforts within the 
Office of Science and Applied Energy Research Programs rather than 
maintain a separate program through ARPA-E.''
  In a June 5 Statement of Administration Policy, the White House 
stated: ``The Administration believes that the continued funding of 
ARPA-E makes little strategic sense given the existence of applied 
energy research elsewhere within the Department. The Congress is urged 
to eliminate ARPA-E and incorporate its more successful elements, such 
as coordination with industry and cross-cutting research, into the 
Department's applied energy programs.''
  The innovations ARPA-E supporters crow about must come from the 
market or from academic research institutions, because the Federal 
Government's track record of responding to commercial incentives in a 
cost-beneficial way to the taxpayer is absolutely poor.
  The proper Federal nexus for research is the early-stage work being 
done at the existing Office of Science and the applied energy research 
program, not projects foisted onto the government that weren't 
compelling enough to receive private funding.
  Heritage Action, Freedomworks, Club for Growth, and the National 
Taxpayers Union are key-voting this amendment. The amendment is also 
endorsed by the Americans for Limited Government and Taxpayers for 
Common Sense.
  I urge adoption of this amendment that supports President Trump's 
agenda.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from Idaho is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  My colleague's amendment would eliminate the Advanced Research 
Project Agency--Energy, otherwise known as ARPA-E.
  ARPA-E's mission is to fund projects that are not yet addressed by 
the private sector but that can bring transformational shifts in 
current energy technologies. From reducing the energy involved in 
producing aluminum to creating new battery storage technologies, these 
are projects that have impacts in almost every industry.
  Since 2009, ARPA-E has provided funding for more than 660 projects. 
As of this year, ARPA-E projects have produced 245 patents, formed 71 
new companies, and have raised more than $2.9 billion in follow-on 
funding from the private sector to bring technologies to market.
  These are successes, and successes help ensure our Nation's energy 
security and create a manufacturing edge in the energy sector. These 
are energy technology goals all Members can support.
  I would remind my friend from Arizona, our job is not to be lemmings 
for the administration. It is to make our own independent judgment.
  While I appreciate and look at the reason that they would like to 
eliminate ARPA-E, I disagree with them. So do a majority of the Members 
of Congress, as they have demonstrated in the past.
  So we must exercise our independent judgment on what is best. While 
we respect the administration's position, we just disagree with it.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, any program that receives this much funding 
has individual successes proponents can point to. The problem with this 
program is that the ratio of successes to the failures is far lower 
with this one than comparable Federal research programs.
  It also targets an area of research that is inappropriate for Federal 
research. Basic early-stage research is a profit avenue for Federal 
dollars to go, not late-stage research on projects approaching 
commercialization. If a concept or technology is nearing 
commercialization, that is the right nexus for private industry to get 
involved.
  Our country's major companies in tech, engineering, and energy are 
flush with cash, and projects that they think are commercially viable 
are getting more funding than ever before. Failure by the government to 
salvage a project means that the projects, on the whole, aren't worth 
being salvaged by government, industry, or anyone.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise to 
strongly oppose the Gosar amendment to completely eliminate the ARPA-E 
advanced energy research program, which helps propel our Nation forward 
as a global leader.
  I could just say to the gentleman from Arizona, for some of the firms

[[Page H4940]]

that have contacted me, the Chinese are hacking into their intellectual 
property every week as they struggle to maintain a global lead in new 
energy technologies.
  Yes, ARPA-E is a pioneering program. It was designed to be that way. 
Yes, it is high risk. Yes, it is high end, so much so that the private 
sector won't do what ARPA-E is conducting. The research is so high in 
science that most companies in this country can't even touch it. And, 
frankly, I don't want the Chinese designing our future.
  They are actually doing research before the private market can drive 
it forward with a commercial product.
  I would like to point out that, in 2011, an American Enterprise 
Institute-Brookings Institution breakthrough study called for ARPA-E to 
be funded at $1.5 billion, annually, because of other countries around 
the world beginning to do research in a way that was competing with our 
own.
  The American Energy Innovation Council, a panel of many of the 
Nation's top business leaders, including Bill Gates, have called for 
ARPA-E to be funded at $1 billion a year. And last year, Republican 
officials--oil and energy executives, business leaders, including the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce--told Congress, ARPA-E is a blueprint `` . . . 
that boost our competitiveness by keeping America at the forefront of 
global energy technology research.''
  These are some of the best people in our country. We ought to be 
listening to them. We are their representatives. As the program focused 
on new possibilities, new patents, ARPA-E has been nothing short of 
remarkable, with 136 projects attracting nearly $3 billion in private 
sector follow-on funding.
  They won't do the research, but they will take what we have invested 
and really do something in the marketplace with it; but beyond just the 
marketplace, something that might have something to do with our 
defense, for example, something to do with our national security--
inventing the future.
  And yet we have come to expect this administration, they want to 
eliminate funding, and some of their allies here in the Congress want 
to eliminate funding. You eliminate the future if you do that. You 
really do eliminate the future.
  So I rise and strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I encourage 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Gosar amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, once again, this is an unauthorized program 
and it treads on existing jurisdictions at the Department of Energy, 
specifically, the Office of Science and Applied Energy Research 
program. It is a program in search of justification.
  Let's take, for example, Solyndra. That is a wonderful success. 
Really? Private sector couldn't do that? They could do it a ton better 
than that type of application.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. This is sound.
  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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


              Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 32, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, 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, I thank Mr. Simpson and Ms. Kaptur for 
working to try to put forward a bill and to recognize the unfortunate 
addition of riders, which we would hope that we could pass these kinds 
of bills in the appropriate manner. But I thank them for their work, 
and I thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order.
  This is an important part of the Energy and Water legislation in 
Appropriations, and that is the Department of Energy's departmental 
work that it does with environmental justice.
  My amendment would ask for an additional $1 million to be placed in 
that program under the administrative office's responsibilities, and to 
do so because it is an essential tool in the effort to improve the 
lives of low-income and minority communities as well as the environment 
at large.
  Many of my Members here have worked on this issue, in particular, Jim 
Clyburn and the Congressional Black Caucus, over the years. I add to 
their work by making sure that this is a focus of the Department of 
Energy.
  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. In 
particular, those individuals who study this issue in those particular 
institutions of higher learning go out to communities and are a source 
of research and aid to communities that suffer from the lack of 
environmental justice, for example, in Flint, Michigan. It is clear 
that that is a place where there was an infusion of experts on how to 
deal with unclean water.
  I worked with Dr. Hotez, one of the renown infectious disease 
physicians in Houston, Texas, when the Zika virus began to take over in 
the summer in, particularly, minority communities.
  DOE's Environmental Justice Program provides dollars to be awarded to 
an important cause of increasing youth involvement in STEM and 
promoting clean energy, weatherization, cleanup, and asset 
revitalization.
  Weatherization is extremely important. The housing stock in my 
congressional district, as in rural communities, is extremely old and 
sometimes weak and subjected to the whims of bad winter weather and the 
whims of very hot summers. These dollars can assist in these kinds of 
programs.
  The Community Leadership Institute is another vital component of the 
Environmental Justice Program, and it promotes environmental 
sustainability. It brings important factors, including public health 
and economic development. It is an important program that helps Native 
Americans and Alaskan Natives.
  So I hope that my colleagues can support the Jackson Lee amendment 
because it deals with an expanse and an emphasis on the importance of a 
quality of life that can deal with a good environment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, 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. Chair, since the amendment does not change funding 
levels in the bill, I will not oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, what we are glad to 
say is that we emphasize and ask for that amount of dollars within the 
administrative account to be increased on the Environmental Justice 
Program.
  We are grateful for the statement of the chairman, and with that in 
mind, we want to remind our colleagues that STEM programs, the program 
that helps in leadership, in particular, that will help young people 
learn more about environmental justice, the issues that we see in 
communities with clean water, clean air, the Zika virus, and other 
elements that impact on minority communities, the Environmental Justice 
Program can be very helpful and very useful. I would ask my colleagues 
to support the Jackson Lee amendment

[[Page H4941]]

  Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk; No. 25.
  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-four 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 is 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 reards 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. Chairman, 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. 26 Offered by Ms. Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. It is Lee 
amendment No. 26.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $65,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $65,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank our Rules Committee chair, 
Mr. Sessions, also our ranking member, Mr. McGovern, as well as all of 
the members of the committee for making this amendment in order.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It would cut the $65 million 
included in this bill for low-yield nuclear weapons and transfer it to 
the defense nuclear nonproliferation account. My amendment strikes one 
of the most harmful and controversial recommendations of the Trump 
Nuclear Posture Review.
  Mr. Chairman, funding this warhead would set a dangerous precedent. 
The last thing we should do is arm our submarines with a low-yield 
ballistic missile. We have never done this before in the many decades 
of nuclear deterrence, and there is absolutely no reason to start now.
  What is worse, this warhead lowers the threshold for nuclear weapons 
use and puts us on a dangerous path to war. At a time when we should be 
reducing the threat of nuclear war, we are doing just the opposite.
  While the Trump administration claims that another low-yield warhead 
would help deter Russia from using these weapons first, that is far 
from the truth. In fact, funding this nuclear weapon could only provoke 
Russia and heighten the risk of nuclear war.
  Let me be clear: This additional funding is both unnecessary, and it 
is dangerous. Our Nation already processes hundreds of low-yield 
warheads. In the coming decades, we will invest another $150 billion 
despite the fact that we already have the capacity really to destroy 
the world many times over.
  This is a waste of money and a danger to our national security. 
Instead of provoking another nuclear arms race with Russia, we should 
be investing in diplomacy and disarmament. The $65 million would be 
better spent at the DOE's nuclear nonproliferation program which 
secures nuclear material both here at home and globally.
  It is hard to think of a more vital national security issue than 
protecting and securing nuclear material, and yet Republicans have cut 
funding for that important program by $97 million from fiscal year 
2018. This is dangerous and, again, does nothing for our national 
security.
  Rather than fund another low-yield nuclear weapon that we don't need, 
we should use the $65 million to increase nuclear nonproliferation 
accounts and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. That is exactly why 
my amendment is so important, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. Assuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear 
weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority of this 
bill. The bill provides necessary funding to extend the life of our 
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and to address the continued 
deterioration of infrastructure at the NNSA sites.
  The amendment targets a new proposal to modify a limited number of 
W76 warheads that are currently undergoing refurbishment in order to 
provide for a low-level variant of the warhead. They will either be 
refurbished with a high-yield warhead or a low-yield warhead.
  This modification does not provide the U.S. with any new nuclear 
capabilities. The U.S. has the capability and will continue to maintain 
that capability to deliver warheads at this yield

[[Page H4942]]

with the Air Force's B61 bomb and the air-launched cruise missile.
  These lower level warheads are necessary to provide a credible 
deterrent against the use of warheads of similar yields that exist in 
large numbers by other nuclear weapons states.
  Specifically, possessing a warhead at this yield shows any aggressor 
that the U.S. has the capability to provide a proportional response to 
the use of a nonstrategic or tactical nuclear weapon against the U.S. 
or its allies. That is why the U.S. nuclear strategy under both the 
Obama administration and this administration advocated maintaining and 
modernizing both the B61 bomb and the nuclear-tipped cruise missile.
  Given that the U.S. has possessed this same capability for many 
years, I disagree with the idea that this modification will serve to 
destabilize relations with other nuclear weapons states. Rather, the 
intent of this warhead modification is to improve stability to 
demonstrate that the U.S. has the ability to deliver this capability on 
platforms that are not vulnerable to air defenses.

                              {time}  1845

  It is intended to improve the credibility of our nuclear deterrent 
and show that the U.S. has the resolve to respond to nuclear threats. 
Credibility is the most basic requirement for nuclear deterrence to 
work.
  The amendment would also reduce the size of the current W76 stockpile 
because the funding supports not only the low-yield modification but 
also the refurbishment work that is needed to extend the life of these 
warheads.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the modification. I urge all Members to vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
and her focusing on this.
  I agree wholeheartedly; we don't need to go down this path again. The 
Republican Congress in 2005 looked at a similar proposal and eliminated 
it from a spending bill.
  The notion that we have low-yield weapons that are going to enable us 
to advance forward from the submarine launch is troubling. This 
actually will make the submarine exposed for being able to know where 
it is and attack it.
  And the ``low-yield'' terminology is a little disquieting. Think of 
the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. These are amazingly destructive. 
Being able to have gradations of response and buy into that notion I 
think is deeply troubling and is, in fact, destabilizing.
  The $1.6 trillion episode that we are embarked upon in terms of 
modernization and enhancement could be well spent in other ways, 
especially not in this direction.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who is the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, we voted on a similar amendment on this 
topic a week before last in the National Defense Authorization Act. It 
was defeated then, and it should be defeated now.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there must be some misunderstanding. We are not 
talking about a new weapons system. What we are talking about is taking 
an existing weapon and taking some of the fissile material out so that 
it results in a lower yield.
  As the chairman from Idaho pointed out, we have similar low-yield 
weapons that are air-delivered. The only difference here is a different 
delivery system through the submarines.
  Now, by the way, submarines already have the higher yield delivery 
system. We are multiplying, though, with a low yield two different 
delivery systems to complicate adversaries' calculations.
  Now, why would we want to do that? Well, it turns out the Russians 
have hundreds and hundreds of these lower yield weapons. And not only 
that, they write and speak openly about using them, even in 
conventional sorts of conflict.
  So the point of the Nuclear Posture Review is we need the full range 
of nuclear capability, from higher yield to lower yield, to make it 
clear that our nuclear deterrent is credible at every level. Whatever 
they may think they can get away with they cannot get away with.
  As Secretary Mattis has written to Leader McConnell on June 3, 2018, 
this ``warhead is meant to reinforce the credibility of our response, 
which strengthens deterrence by denying potential adversaries the 
advantages they appear to believe they could realize from nuclear first 
use.''
  It seems to me that that should be the thing that all of us come 
together on in national security. It is having a credible nuclear 
deterrent to ensure that no adversary--Russia, North Korea, no one--
believes that they can get away with using these weapons. That is the 
reason this is so important.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would strike 
$65 million for the development of the W76-2, or low-yield, nuclear 
warhead and move that funding to the nuclear nonproliferation account.
  The development of these warheads is based on the fallacy that 
nuclear war can be small and contained using smaller, lower yield 
weaponry. The idea that a nuclear war can be contained or minimized is 
dubious at best and terrifyingly dangerous at worst.
  Former Secretary of State George Schultz has affirmed this, saying 
that ``nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons'' and that the only logical 
path of a nuclear strike is escalation to higher yield weapons.
  This sentiment was recently reiterated in a letter signed by 
Secretary Schultz and nearly three dozen other current and former 
national security experts and officials, including former Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar and former Secretary 
of Defense William Perry, opposing the development of these types of 
warheads.
  Further development of these types of weapons creates a greater 
possibility for a nuclear confrontation that will be impossible to 
contain. Instead of making us safer, it will only increase the chances 
that countless lives could be wiped out in an instant.

  This is an excellent amendment. It will make America safer.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the excellent amendment 
by the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I 
move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congresswoman Lee, my colleague on 
the Appropriations Committee, for offering this very important 
amendment, and I rise in support of it.
  Please let me remind my colleagues who may not agree with our 
position that if this particular proposal for developing a low-yield 
nuclear weapon were so important, why was it not included in the 
administration's initial budget submission to us?
  The process by which this has been handled for a nuclear weapon--if 
this were a conventional, then maybe there is a little room there for 
maneuver. But in terms of a nuclear weapon, it has many consequences 
beyond the weapon itself, including the understanding of our allies and 
including many of the treaties that are currently in place.
  I was actually shocked when the Secretary of Energy and many people 
from the Department of Energy came before our committee and they could 
not answer any questions on this. The nuclear security agency, when 
they came up before our committee, at that point this had not been 
proposed. It came in late; it was thrown over the transom. And I think 
the manner in which this has been handled is actually terrible.
  We have the most capable and sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the 
world. It is credible enough to deter and respond to any threat right 
now. We have what we need.
  But if we are to alter the combination of weapons that we have in our 
arsenal, then, for heaven's sake, why not come up under regular order?

[[Page H4943]]

  We owe it to the American people and to our allies to have a full 
discussion and debate and assess how others will react to what we are 
doing and what we need to respond to. This may not be the most perfect 
response. And we don't want to wander down a path to a variety of 
nuclear weapons without the kind of debate on deterrence, on security, 
on cost, on schedule, and on relation to existing systems that we have 
in place in our own country or others.
  So I really think the manner in which this was handled was absolutely 
awful. For something that deals with nuclear weapons, this Congress 
deserves more respect, the American people deserve more respect, and 
the world community deserves more respect. We are not saying we will 
never support this, but this is not the time to support this.
  I think the Congresswoman has proposed the proper amendment, and that 
is to strike the low-yield missile at this point.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I also want to compliment my colleagues on the other side of this 
argument: the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee; I see our 
friend from Colorado and others here. All of us have the same goal, and 
that is to assure that the United States, and indeed the world, is safe 
from a nuclear war. We use deterrence as the way of accomplishing that.
  Every President since Ronald Reagan has strived to achieve a safer 
world by reducing the number of nuclear weapons. However, in recent 
years, beginning with President Obama and being carried on today, we 
are now involved in a new nuclear arms race.
  Not only are we going to build new nuclear weapons--bombs, if you 
will--such as this 762, presumed to be low-yield, which is still 
extraordinarily devastating, we are also creating new delivery systems, 
new land-based missiles in the Upper Midwest, new submarines and new 
rockets and new stealth bombers--all of that costing more than $1 
trillion.
  At the same time, we are developing new sensing devices and new ways 
in which we might protect those sensing devices and communications.
  All of this is creating an extremely dangerous world for our future, 
not a safer world. We are going in the absolutely wrong direction of 
increasing the likelihood of a mistake.
  I don't think anybody on any side would ever want to initiate, but 
this particular bomb presents the opportunity for an escalation, a tit 
for tat. Russia escalates to deescalate, we escalate to deescalate, and 
they escalate, and we escalate, and pretty soon it is all gone.
  I would just ask all of us to step back and ponder for a moment why 
it was that Reagan and George H.W. Bush and Clinton and George W. Bush 
and Obama all went the other direction, to reduce the number of nuclear 
weapons.
  But here we are in the midst of a new nuclear arms race--$1.7 
trillion. And all of us know that there are numerous needs that we 
have.
  So I would ask us just to pause for a second and to accept this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, is all the time expired on that side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 15 seconds of her original 5 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say a couple of things.
  Our country should not expand the number of scenarios under which the 
United States might consider the use of nuclear weapons. We should 
never be in a position that the U.S. is using nuclear weapons first, 
which would lead us to a catastrophic war.

  I think Members on both sides of the aisle can agree to this, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, is all of the time expired on my side from 
the original 5 minutes?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say in this 30 seconds, first 
of all, addressing the gentlewoman from Ohio's concern, the 
administration waited until the Nuclear Posture Review was done before 
they could submit their request for this funding.
  The budget request had been being worked on from clear last September 
before that, and they came up within days of each other, but the 
administration was waiting for the NPR to be finished before they 
submitted.
  We might not have liked the way that turned out, but that is just the 
reality. I don't think it was anybody's intent to try to misguide 
Congress or anything like that, while I understand her concern.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Idaho has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), let me say the impression here is that we are 
increasing the number of nuclear weapons. We are not. We are doing 
refurbishment of the current weapons.
  And 50 of them would not be high-level; they would be low-level, low-
yield nuclear weapons. It doesn't increase the numbers.
  All of this is compliant with all of our nuclear treaties--compliant 
with all of our nuclear treaties.
  When I first heard about this, I actually had the same concerns I am 
hearing from the other side of the aisle: How does this increase our 
safety? Doesn't it make it more likely it would be used if it was a 
low-yield rather than high-yield?
  Then I went to some briefings and talked to some people, people who 
wrote the NPR and a few things like that, and what I found out was that 
Russia already has hundreds and hundreds--as the chairman of the 
committee said, has hundreds and hundreds of low-yield nuclear 
warheads.
  Why are they doing that? Would why they possibly do that? Because 
they think it will give them a strategic advantage in a traditional 
war.
  If our only response to their use of a low-yield nuclear weapon is 
Armageddon, then their bet is that we are not going to go to that 
level. For deterrence to work, it has to be credible. They have to 
understand that if they even use a low-yield nuclear weapon we will 
respond and that we have the capability to do it in proportion without 
destroying the world.
  But you also have to understand we are not talking about first use by 
us. This is meant to decrease the likelihood of a nuclear exchange.

                              {time}  1900

  I have come to the conclusion that if we don't do this, we are going 
to increase the likelihood of a nuclear exchange. Otherwise, why are 
they creating hundreds and hundreds--and China and North Korea are 
looking at it also--why are they creating nuclear low-yield weapons? 
Why is that in their interest?
  Stop and think about it a minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Idaho, and I 
appreciate his remarks. I also thank the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee from Texas.
  Let me point out that in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, Secretary 
James Mattis conducted a very clear-eyed assessment of nuclear threats. 
He said: ``We must look reality in the eye and see the world as it is, 
not as we wish it to be.''
  As has been pointed out, Russia has hundreds and hundreds--actually, 
thousands--of low-yield nuclear weapons, including nuclear artillery 
shells, nuclear land mines, nuclear torpedoes, and others that they 
have announced. Russia regularly trains with its ``escalate-to-
deescalate'' doctrine, which they believe will force the U.S. to 
surrender early in a conflict.
  Under James Mattis, the Nuclear Posture Review rightly says: 
``Correcting this mistaken Russian perception is a strategic 
imperative.''
  Also, dozens of current and former defense officials and military 
officers

[[Page H4944]]

have confirmed that this lower-yield weapon is necessary to enhance 
deterrence.
  Here is President Obama's last Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter: 
``My views are reflected in the latest NPR,'' Nuclear Posture Review, 
where he agrees with this doctrine.
  So that is the last two Secretaries of Defense from two different 
political parties and from two different administrations--very 
different administrations, I might add--and they are in full agreement 
that we need to do this for U.S. capability to stop Russian potential 
aggression.
  The amendment should be rejected. The agenda behind the amendment is 
totally outside the bipartisan mainstream of serious national security 
leaders like Secretary James Mattis and Secretary Ashton Carter.
  As has been said, I would remind my colleagues that this House has 
already debated this issue in the fiscal year 2019 NDAA we passed 2 
weeks ago by a vote of 351-66--about a six-to-one ratio--and we 
rejected similar amendments at that time.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. 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 California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. 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 33, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $97,219,000)''.
       Page 34, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $97,219,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation program by $97 million. To offset this increase, my 
amendment funds the nuclear weapons activities program at $460 million 
above its FY 2018 appropriation. That is right, Mr. Chairman.
  This amendment returns the nonproliferation account to its FY 2018 
enacted level of funding, and still provides the nuclear weapons 
activities program nearly a half a billion-dollar increase.
  I would say this amendment is a simple trade off: support for nuclear 
proliferation at the expense of nuclear clear weapons. But the numbers 
reveal this amendment offers us not so much as a tradeoff as it does a 
win-win solution by making nonproliferation whole again while 
sacrificing relatively little in terms of nuclear weapons spending. 
That is because this underlying bill includes more than $180 million 
above what the President is requesting for nuclear weapons activities 
in FY 2019 and $557 million above the FY 2018 appropriation. That makes 
this a win-win amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Both of these accounts fund nonproliferation and stockpile reduction 
programs that I think we can all support. But I fear we are 
underfunding nonproliferation in a manner inconsistent with our stated 
security priorities.
  In the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, the administration stated: 
``Nuclear terrorism remains among the most significant threats to the 
security of the United States, our allies, and partners.''
  The National Nuclear Security Administration's Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation program works globally to prevent state and non-state 
actors from developing nuclear weapons or acquiring weapons-usable 
nuclear or radiological materials, equipment, technology, and 
expertise. This includes programs for nuclear material removal, 
international nuclear security, nuclear smuggling detection deterrence, 
international nuclear safeguards, and nuclear detonation detection. It 
also includes the Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response 
program. However, the administration's rhetorical concern for nuclear 
terrorism is, sadly, not matched by its budget request or the funding 
level provided in this bill.
  Additionally, I am concerned that the current funding level does not 
help us lay the groundwork for the immense nonproliferation challenge 
now posed by a possible denuclearization agreement all of us hope will 
occur on the Korean Peninsula.
  The administration's Nuclear Posture Review declared, ``North Korea's 
illicit nuclear program must be completely, verifiably, and 
irreversibly eliminated.'' I share that goal. If you want to ensure 
that inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency have the 
training and expertise they need to implement a complete, verifiable, 
and irreversible denuclearization program for North Korea, then you 
must support the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program and you do 
not want to see it cut by $97 million.
  Additionally, there are nuclear weapons programs funded in this bill 
that are unnecessary, such as funding for the development of low-yield 
nuclear weapons and an uncertain plan for the expansion of plutonium 
pit production. Eliminating both of these programs would help return 
the nonproliferation program to its 2018 level.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my friend from 
Virginia's amendment. This bill shows strong support for the 
nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, something that I support.
  Funding for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1.9 billion, it is 
$39 million above the budget request. That includes increases above the 
request for research and development activities for which we received 
Member requests.
  I have also supported increases in the past for these activities. The 
$2 billion amount that this amendment seeks to achieve is the result of 
an increase of $206 million above the fiscal year 2018 request.
  The NNSA's nonproliferation account has significant unexpended 
balances that are the result of slow progress on international 
nonproliferation agreements and the infusion of additional funding 
added by Congress in prior years.
  It is not enough to just say we support nonproliferation and we 
support it by increasing the budget. That is how much we support it. It 
has to go towards something. You have to have agreements with 
international partners for nonproliferation activities.
  In May, the NNSA reported that it had $2.6 billion in available funds 
to carry out its nonproliferation mission, of which more than $733 
million is left over from prior years. You have $733 million left over 
from prior years, and you want to add to that.
  Given the increasing amounts of unused balances, it is not clear that 
the NNSA will be able to expend additional funding in a timely manner.
  Not only would the amendment continue to add to programs beyond which 
the agency has said it can accomplish, it would do so at the expense of 
funding necessary to sustain our nuclear weapons stockpile, refurbish 
aging infrastructure, secure facilities where U.S. nuclear weapons are 
stored, and support a science-based stockpile certification strategy 
without nuclear testing. That is why I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is left on my 
side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute remaining.

[[Page H4945]]

  

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Connolly for yielding 
me his last minute and rise in support of this very important amendment 
to move $97 million to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account.
  Without question, we are going to undergo modernization of our entire 
nuclear stockpile in this country. We are going to spend well over a 
trillion dollars.
  In addition to that, we have had discussions this afternoon and 
debate about this new low-yield nuclear weapon, which many people have 
misgivings about in view of the way it has been handled in committee 
here.
  There is no more important time in terms of the world, when we look 
at many unstable regimes that hold nuclear weapons within their stock, 
for us to have the most capable people with the most technical 
expertise to advise, not just people here in the United States, but our 
friends and allies abroad and international organizations concerned 
about nuclear proliferation.
  So the gentleman's amendment increases our ability, doesn't harm our 
ability, to monitor and verify arms control agreements and prevent 
other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons.
  I support the amendment. I think it makes sense with what we are 
doing with our own arsenal and what is happening globally. It makes 
ultimate sense that we should never cut these accounts.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would ask the gentlewoman 
from Ohio and the gentleman from Virginia is: What are they going to do 
with the additional $97 million? What are you going to do with it?
  You have got $733 million sitting there right now that they can't 
spend. We have to have agreements with foreign countries to do 
nonproliferation work. Where are they going to spend it?
  I have been complaining--not complaining, but arguing, I guess--with 
Members for the last several years that want to put money in to show 
their support for nonproliferation: Why don't you just put more money 
into it? I ask them: What do you want to do with it? They can't tell 
you.
  By saying we increase the nonproliferation account, it shows we 
support nonproliferation. But you have got to have something you are 
going to do with it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I do have a list of projects totalling 
between $100 million and $190 million that could be funded with this 
$97 million.
  I would also just add, and then I will yield back, given the fact 
that the President ripped up the Iran nuclear agreement that was 
working, we are going to have to spend a lot more money in Iran. And 
given the fact that we are having a summit with North Korea, hopefully, 
we are going to have to spend a lot more money in North Korea.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I guess you have got an agreement 
there with Iran to do nonproliferation work?
  The reason we have some excess money is because the agreements with 
Russia, when things got a little cold between our two countries, some 
of those agreements kind of went by the wayside.
  I would like to know what the projects are. If there is something 
that somebody has come up with, if there are agreements to do those 
types of things. You can't say: I want to spend another $97 million on 
top of the $733 million.
  If that is accurate at $190 million, we've got $733 million to do it 
right now. So why throw another $97 million on top of it? It just 
doesn't make sense to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to 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 Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 28 Offered by O'Halleran

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. 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 36, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Chair, I rise to bring attention to a matter of 
critical importance to the health and safety of my constituents and 
citizens across the country.
  We need to act swiftly to clean up abandoned uranium mines in the 
Southwestern United States. On the Navajo Nation alone, there are over 
500 abandoned mine sites that remain unaddressed and pose a danger to 
area residents.
  Many of these mines provided uranium to the U.S. Atomic Energy 
Commission for defense activities between 1947 and 1970, putting them 
in the purview of the Defense-Related Uranium Mines Program. While this 
program is working to inventory and assess sites, we must begin 
planning to clean these sites up.
  This past week, I was in Cameron, Arizona, a community on the Navajo 
Nation which has been impacted by uranium mining. The town sits right 
above the Little Colorado River, and the mine sites are not far from 
the river, whose water eventually flows into the Grand Canyon.
  In Cameron, I heard stories about how these sites have gone decades 
without the necessary cleanup. At this same meeting, I heard from 
community members and Tribal leaders that sites like this are a growing 
concern across the Navajo Nation. These communities need us now, Mr. 
Chair.
  Across northern Arizona, uranium mining has a toxic legacy, and many 
of my constituents continue to fight the cancers and diseases that were 
caused by radiation exposure decades ago. This exposure was so severe 
that Congress went so far as to pass the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act.
  Today we understand these health risks, and we know that unaddressed 
sites pose a danger to public health and will continue to pose risks 
until they are remediated or reclaimed.
  In some communities, abandoned mines are near water, near schools, or 
are places where livestock graze. The potential contamination of these 
areas that are so critical to our communities and our food and water 
resources is a serious issue that we have put off for too long. We must 
step up now and clean these sites.
  My amendment simply designates funding to expedite cleanup of sites 
through the Defense-Related Uranium Mines Program. This amendment will 
ensure that we are doing our part to improve public health for long-
neglected communities in Arizona and the Southwest.
  It is past time to turn the page on the Federal Government's 
disgraceful failure to address this issue for the families affected 
spanning decades. I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense 
amendment on behalf of these families and their communities.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's support for the 
DOE's efforts to take action on the defense-related uranium mines that 
are a

[[Page H4946]]

legacy of the Cold War. The amendment does not change funding levels 
within the bill, and I do not oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 amendment no. 29 offered by mr. gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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 40, after line 24, insert the following:


                       wapa administrator salary

       Sec. __. The salary of Mark Gabriel, the Administrator of 
     the Western Area Power Administration, shall be reduced to 
     $1.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, 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. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
utilizes the Holman rule to hold WAPA Administrator Mark Gabriel 
accountable.
  On Gabriel's watch, millions of taxpayer and customer dollars were 
flushed down the drain on fraudulent and improper transactions while a 
culture of fear from the highest echelons of the agency enforced 
silence as to the true nature and scope of these misdeeds.
  Wasteful and fraudulent expenditures by WAPA in recent years include 
things like ammunition; specialized weapons, including numerous 
purchases of $1,200 rifle scopes; an unauthorized ATV at a cost of 
$14,000; a John Deere lawn tractor; personal clothing; prohibited 
purchases of $349,000 to accessorize personal cars; $271,000 at book 
stores; $102,000 to deck out motorcycles from shops and dealers; and 
questionable expenditures from one employee to the tune of $50,000 per 
month.
  Now, in response, the Western Area Power Administration slow-walked 
investigations, covered up the fraud, and intimidated anyone bold 
enough to call it out.
  A 14-year Federal employee who once worked for the U.S. Attorney's 
Office told reporters: ``Instead of aggressively going after 
corruption, WAPA's bosses slow-walked the investigation, retaliated 
against those who uncovered fraud, and failed to protect them from 
threats.''
  Unfortunately, this employee is not alone. A former WAPA vice 
president for procurement went on record to state that, during his 30 
years of Federal service, he had never seen anything like this and 
certainly had never felt unsafe at work until he worked at WAPA on a 
daily basis.
  Disturbingly, 20 complaints of violence in the workplace occurred 
over the last 3-year period. The mismanagement, corruption, and culture 
is so bad at WAPA that an independent consultant did a violence 
assessment in late 2015 and found: ``Multiple employees reported having 
been threatened directly or heard others being threatened regarding the 
current investigations. . . . Several indicated they had not bothered 
to report the incidents for reasons of fear and/or the belief upper 
management would not act. Because of past failures to address these 
issues more seriously, it is very likely the incidents will increase in 
number and severity.''
  Assessors also reported: ``Employees mentioned bosses who actively 
seek to intimidate employees, especially women, and who tolerate and 
perhaps promote a culture of unacceptable behavior in their teams.''
  Equally troubling, Administrator Gabriel is routinely and publicly 
insubordinate as an agency head. At an April 12, 2018, budget hearing, 
Mr. Gabriel took a public position contrary to that of the current 
administration, advocating for tip funding even though the budget 
proposal proposed to eliminate such funding.
  This commonsense amendment seeks to hold this rogue bureaucrat 
accountable to the American people and the victims who have suffered 
under his tenure.
  I am pleased to have the support of FreedomWorks, who is key voting 
this amendment; Club for Growth, who is key voting the amendment; the 
Tea Party Patriots; Americans for Limited Government; Texas' Michael Q. 
Sullivan; the Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association; the 
Mohave Electric Cooperative; the Sulphur Springs Valley Electric 
Cooperative; Arizona Pork Producers; New Mexico Cattle Growers 
Association; New Mexico Wool Growers; Sulphur Up North Jobs, 
Incorporated.
  Numerous customers and Federal employees no longer want Mr. Gabriel 
in charge, having understandably lost faith in his leadership. It is 
far past time that the Department of Energy clean house and show this 
Obama administration holdover the door.
  Mr. Chair, I commend the chairman and the committee for their efforts 
on this legislation. I urge support of the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I recognize my colleague's concerns about certain actions and 
practices of the Western Area Power Administration. I applaud his 
dedication to improving the functionality of the agency for the benefit 
of his constituents. In fact, he has worked with this committee to make 
improvements related to appropriations, and I would encourage him to 
continue to engage with us on appropriate oversight measures.
  This amendment, though, will not improve the effectiveness and 
transparency of this agency. Rather, it is simply a punitive one toward 
one individual, and I cannot support such an effort. That is why I 
opposed the Holman rule that was adopted by the rules package, I 
guess--what?--last year or something like that, the year before last.
  The problem is you have got an individual here, and there have been 
claims about his behavior or his inability to do his job, and we are 
going to debate whether he is going to have a salary or not or whether 
you are going to essentially fire him, reduce his salary to $1, in a 
10-minute debate on the floor.
  Is that really fair? Is that right? I don't think you should do that.
  If the activities that have been suggested by the gentleman from 
Arizona have occurred, why isn't the Government Oversight Committee 
looking at this? Why aren't they calling him in, having a hearing on 
it? Why isn't the Energy and Commerce Committee doing the same?
  That is the appropriate way to do that when you have got someone who 
has misbehaved as an Administrator, not to come on the floor with a 10-
minute debate, make charges which may or may not be true--I just don't 
know--but then ask us to essentially fire somebody. I just don't think 
that is right.
  For these reasons, I must urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have left.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the current application of the Holman rule 
authorizes three specific uses in an appropriation bill: the reduction 
of amounts of money in the bill, the reduction of the number and salary 
of officers of the United States, or the reduction of the compensation 
of any person paid out in the treasury of the United States.
  Let's go back through this. Look at this fraud. Look at these 20 
complaints of violence.
  I have to tell you: Are you sure you want to defend this guy? 
Inconceivable. Inconceivable that we are going to allow this. We owe it 
to the Federal employees under this gentleman to have an employment 
environment to be well taken care of.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for the Members to vote on behalf of this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, nobody is defending this individual. What he 
has presented is 20 accusations. I think he ought to be able to have 
his day in a proper hearing before the proper committee to decide 
whether it is the right

[[Page H4947]]

thing to do, not sit here and say, ``I agree with these accusations.'' 
I don't know if they are true or not. Nobody on this floor knows 
whether they are true or not.
  Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for 
yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment, not completely 
understanding what it is the gentleman is objecting to.
  I know that you have an individual about whom you are upset. The 
gentleman is from the State of Arizona.
  Am I correct?
  Mr. GOSAR. Yes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. The State of the gentleman is under this Western Area 
Power Authority. We don't have that sort of power umbrella in our 
region of the country. I have read all about the fights in the West 
among all these Western States, a dozen and a half Western States: 
Arizona fights with California; California fights with Washington; 
Washington fights--it is unbelievable. So I am a little reluctant as a 
non-Westerner to believe anybody until we get a proper tribunal to 
assess whether what you are saying is correct or not. For all I know, 
this man put some power in another State that hurt Arizona. I don't 
know.
  I look at the controversies out there, and I just think that this 
amendment targets one person and reduces their salary to one dollar 
without any trial, without any tribunal. It sort of reminds me of the 
way in which the gentleman's side of the aisle handled the firing of 
the chaplain and then, because we finally tried to get some justice 
here, he was brought on.
  Mr. Chair, you don't do this to people. We have a judicial process in 
this country, and you have to go through the proper channels. I think 
we have to focus on fair ways in which to adjudicate if, in fact, there 
is something going on out there. I really question whether what is 
really going on here is a fight between Arizona and adjoining States.
  Mr. GOSAR. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman has 
expired. The gentleman from Idaho may yield to you, if he so desires.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, has my time expired?
  The Acting CHAIR. No. The gentleman from Idaho controls the time. The 
gentlewoman from Ohio cannot yield.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, this isn't a jurisdictional aspect of power 
across the West. This is fraud. This is workplace violence--20. This 
has nothing to do with jurisdictional application of water or power. 
This is an unsafe application within the workplace. This is a bully in 
an agency who is weighing in and doing unwanted things.
  We have an obligation, an absolute obligation, to rein somebody in 
like this. That is what is wrong here. If we can't do this to a swamp 
creature of this magnitude, then what can we do.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, 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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1930


                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Keating

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mr. KEATING. 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 55, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to ensure adequate 
resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, to provide 
for safe and effective decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
  In 2016, Entergy Corporation, the owner and operator of the Pilgrim 
Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts, announced that the 
plant would be decommissioned by 2019 after facing severe losses in 
revenue and plagued by safety concerns.
  Since coming to Congress, I have been concerned by the safety of 
Pilgrim's day-to-day operations as well as the security of its spent 
fuel storage. Following Entergy's announcement, I have worked with 
State and local representatives to prioritize the safety of the 
decommissioning process, security of the plant's spent fuel, and the 
displacement of over 600 workers who are employed at the site.
  The NRC has previously issued reports revealing that Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station comes up short on critical systems maintenance, and it is 
currently the worst performing reactor in the entire country.
  While this infraction ultimately falls on the responsibility of 
Entergy, it is equally important that the NRC has the necessary 
resources to address concerns as they arise, including through 
cooperation with local communities.
  As we have often cited, decommissioning of nuclear power plants has 
an enormous economic and financial impact on host communities. We have 
urged that decommissioning funds be used for the safe removal of spent 
fuel to dry cask storage, to restoration, to remediation of the site 
and maintaining emergency preparedness and security resources 
throughout the entire process.
  Finally, it is my hope that the NRC prioritizes worker protections as 
it oversees decommissioning both in my district and around the entire 
country. As the number of decommissioned plants increases, the 
potential exodus of highly skilled experienced workers presents a 
serious threat to our safety. The people in my community rely on the 
workers in Plymouth to keep them safe, and we hope the NRC will 
facilitate workforce continuity throughout the entire decommissioning 
process.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this 
amendment and urge their support. Again, I would like to thank the 
chairman from Idaho.
  We started the day working on issues from the Pilgrims to the 
Mayflower, too, to things the Pilgrims never envisioned, like 
decommissioned nuclear power plants. So rest assured that when we 
celebrate the 2020 400th anniversary in the town of Plymouth, America's 
hometown, that he will be very welcomed, and I will give him a personal 
tour of the awe-inspiring view of Plymouth Rock.
  Thank you again for your help, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Smucker). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Beyer to 
offer an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 62, beginning on line 16, strike section 505.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment preserves the National 
Ocean Policy. The National Ocean Policy is a commonsense way to 
facilitate multistakeholder collaboration on complex ocean issues, and 
it promotes economic opportunity, national security, and environmental 
protection.

[[Page H4948]]

  I think we can all agree that we want thriving ocean and coastal 
ecosystems that promote the economic vitality of our communities. The 
National Ocean Policy is doing exactly that with the Northeastern 
region having completed its plan and the West Coast and other regions 
well on their way.
  Prohibiting the allocation of funds to this important program will 
stifle collaboration among stakeholders on complex issues relating to 
environmental protection, national security, economic opportunity, and 
ocean policy.
  I represent a coastal district in southern California, and I know 
firsthand that we can have a thriving ocean economy and at the same 
time protect and conserve our precious ocean resources.
  Off the coast of my district, there are marine-protected areas, State 
waters, Federal waters, and Department of Defense installations. We are 
a marine life hotspot. Some of the best blue whale watching happens 
just a few miles from our shore. We have a booming recreational fishing 
section. We have a large shellfish aquaculture ranch that is now 
operating. We have beautiful beaches. We also have oil and gas activity 
with some rigs right near our shore. My district is also home to the 
Port of Long Beach, which is the second busiest port in North America.
  With so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the 
Navy at the table when NOAA is working on siting of new aquaculture 
installations. It makes sense to have the Fishery Management Council 
weigh in when oil rigs are being decommissioned, and it is a no-brainer 
that NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the ports all work together to get 
these massive ships in and out of our port safely.
  So as we move forward, the need for an overarching policy only grows. 
Issues like sea level rise and ocean acidification are too big and too 
serious for any one community or agency to tackle alone. Increased 
aquaculture development and new technologies for clean, local energy 
are creating economic opportunities, but they must be thoughtfully 
implemented.
  The National Ocean Policy is the tool we have right now to promote 
smart shared use of our ocean resources. All of our districts benefit 
from our oceans, whether we represent coastal districts or not. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, on July 19, 2010, President Obama signed 
Executive Order 13547 and sought to implement a new National Ocean 
Policy. According to the House Committee on Natural Resources: ``In 
this unilateral action, he established a top-down Washington, D.C.-
based approval process that will hinder rather than promote ocean and 
inland activities and cost American jobs. . . . This has the potential 
to inflict damage across a spectrum of sectors, including agriculture, 
fishing, construction, manufacturing, mining, oil and natural gas, 
renewable energy, and marine commerce, among others. . . . Over 80 
national and local organizations representing agriculture, forestry, 
energy, fishing, boating, mining, transportation, and construction 
wrote to then Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers requesting a 
prohibition on funding for the implementation of the President's 
National Ocean Policy.''
  Our oceans are home to a variety of industries, and it is critical 
that we maintain our offshore environments and promote a robust 
offshore economy. The National Ocean Policy represents the previous 
administration's heavyhanded, top-down approach to Federal land and 
water management and does not reflect the realities of our working 
oceans and coastal communities.
  Our offshore assets contribute billions to the U.S. economy, and the 
National Ocean Policy's vague directive sharply discouraged the 
development of American energy, sustainable fisheries, and our coastal 
economies. Policies like this cause industries to turn outside of the 
U.S. to do their business.
  Adding duplicative layers of permitting and consultation to our 
already highly regulated ocean industries and subject all parties to 
virtually unlimited legal exposure, we are seeing this firsthand in the 
Northeast, where direct conflict in the ocean user groups has resulted 
in litigation. This is the exact thing that this policy is supposed to 
alleviate. Years into implementation, this policy is incapable of 
achieving its stated goal.
  U.S. oceans industries are major global players, and we need to keep 
our industries competitive. The National Ocean Policy does the 
opposite. As such, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Here is the bottom line. Ocean planning works, and I can assure you 
that this is not a top-down approach. Ocean plans are regionally led 
initiatives where stakeholders and researchers collect data and then 
come to the table to voice their concerns and work out their 
differences.
  With ocean planning, we can use our waters wisely and sustainably. In 
the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, we have already finished our plans.
  Now, for some reason, many of my colleagues across the aisle don't 
believe in this open discussion amon stakeholders, but we have seen 
what happens when oceans are brought to the brink. Species have been 
pushed to the edge of extinction undermining the livelihoods of our 
fishermen and destroying the vibrant ocean ecosystem.

  It baffles me that we continue debating this. Ocean planning is the 
way to ensure local and regional voices are heard and that we 
sustainably pass our waters on to the next generation.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, which I thank Mr. 
Beyer for leading.
  I also want to recognize and commend my colleague in the other 
Chamber, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, for his extraordinary work in 
combating climate change and fighting for a sustainable ocean policy.
  This is the right thing to do, again, regionally led, definitely not 
a top-down approach.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. Chairman, although I am supportive of the stated goals of the 
National Ocean Policy, such as more interagency coordination and 
decisionmaking, there are many troubling aspects here.
  This amendment seeks to strip underlying language that prevents 
Federal agencies from using ambiguous authorities in the National Ocean 
Policy to encroach on a wide variety of ocean and inland activities.
  I have heard from farmers and irrigators from throughout the Pacific 
Northwest concerned that ill-defined terms such as ``ecosystem-based 
management'' give broad authority to Federal agencies to adversely 
impact terrestrial agriculture that is hundreds of miles from the 
Pacific Coast in the name of ocean management.
  Before imposing these burdens on farmers who feed our Nation, it is 
necessary for Congress to evaluate such a policy to ensure that all 
affected stakeholders have a seat at the table. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I 
thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time.
  Now, every year, we have this battle. It is a battle to simply 
recognize the importance of our oceans and ocean planning. We have 
already learned about the fact that ocean planning works, and it is 
working already in New England and the mid-Atlantic; and instead of 
arguing hypotheticals about things that could happen, might happen, we 
should talk about the story of what actually happens in regions like 
mine where we live and work on the ocean.
  The story of National Ocean Policy isn't national at all. It is about 
local control, local stakeholders, local input, and local 
decisionmaking.

[[Page H4949]]

  In Maine, we have some great success stories of fishermen, 
lobstermen, Native American Tribes, local communities, and other 
stakeholders developing voluntary regional ocean plans. It is a great 
story of coordination among varied interests, all with the same goal of 
better understanding our oceans, protecting them, and working with them 
and in them.

                              {time}  1945

  By including those who work on and near the ocean, we are 
coordinating ocean activities for efficiency and coordination.
  But the language in today's underlying bill would make it even more 
difficult for Federal agencies, for State agencies, and for local 
communities to work together on the future of our ocean resources.
  Mr. Chairman, this rider has no place in this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to strike it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has 
expired.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me first state that Idaho is not next to an ocean, although we do 
have the furthest inland port of any State in the country.
  The point of this is that you all make great arguments--arguments 
that ought to be held and debated in the authorizing committee.
  The point is that the ocean policy here was put in effect without 
ever going through Congress. It has never been authorized. It is not 
that it has been authorized and the expiration dates just expired, like 
many programs, far too many programs. This has never been authorized by 
Congress.
  I might agree with you in the end, but it ought to go through the 
proper process instead of just doing an executive order.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
which would remove the provision in this bill which prohibits funding 
from being used to implement National Ocean Policy.
  This provision represents yet another in a long line of attempts by 
House Republicans to weaken an effective, common sense policy that 
protects our nation's oceans.
  National Ocean Policy allows federal agencies to coordinate 
implementation of more than 100 ocean laws, and allows state and local 
governments to have a say in the ocean planning process.
  In my home state of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, a strong National 
Ocean Policy is vital to our economy.
  Rhode Island's ocean economy generates more than $2 billion annually, 
including more than $1.4 billion from the travel and tourism 
industries, and nearly $94 million from the commercial fishing 
industry.
  On top of this, Rhode Island's Ocean economy supports more than 
41,000 jobs.
  My state, as well as all coastal states, depends on clean, viable 
oceans to support these industries, which is why it is such a terrible 
idea to undermine the development of a strong National Ocean Policy.
  National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations, supersede 
existing regulations, rather, it helps coordinate the implementation of 
and compliance with existing regulations in order to ensure a more 
efficient and effective decision making process.
  The funding prohibition in this bill would undermine good, effective 
policy, and would undermine effective stewardship of our nation's 
oceans and coastlines.
  I strongly support this amendment to remove the provision, and 
encourage its adoption.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Kihuen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mr. KIHUEN. 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 63, beginning on line 7, strike section 508.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, 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, I offer an amendment to H.R. 5895, the 
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 
2019.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. It would strike 
language that would prohibit the closure of Yucca Mountain.
  This site sits in my congressional district, less than 100 miles away 
from Las Vegas, a city that sees 42 million visitors each year, with 
many of these visitors coming from your districts. Nevada depends on 
these visitors. Nevada's economy depends on these visitors.
  Putting a nuclear repository this close to millions of Americans is 
simply irresponsible. And I have grave concerns with the transportation 
of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain should this project move forward 
against the will of Nevadans.
  Mr. Chairman, Nevada has no nuclear-energy-producing facilities, and 
it should not be the dumping ground for the rest of the country's 
nuclear waste. The bottom line is this: If your State generates nuclear 
waste, then you should keep it in your backyard.
  Or if any of my colleagues are okay with sending nuclear waste to my 
State, then maybe they should consider keeping it in their own State. I 
will be more than happy to work with them on an amendment.
  So, again, Mr. Chairman, the people in Nevada do not want this 
nuclear waste stored in their backyard. Yucca Mountain needs to close, 
and that is why I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Titus), my colleague from the First Congressional 
District.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Kihuen for yielding and 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Earlier this evening, we heard from the distinguished Member from 
Illinois, who continues to push the ``Yucca or bust'' policy of the 
last 36 years.
  He claimed that the Nevada delegation is trying to circumvent the 
adjudication process to determine if Nevada should be the dumping 
ground for the Nation's highly radioactive nuclear waste.
  He said Congress should reject another amendment to save $190 million 
from being thrown away on this failed proposal because we should let 
the licensing process play out without some preconceived outcome.
  Well, I am sorry, but that is just more BS. If he really believed 
that, he would be joining us in support of amendment No. 32, which 
strips the unnecessary policy rider that prohibits closing down the 
already-shuttered Yucca Mountain.
  It predetermines that Yucca Mountain will be the Nation's nuclear 
waste dump and handcuffs the administration from choosing another site 
regardless of what any studies show.
  If we are serious about solving this problem, we should change 
direction and allow consent-based siting. We could start that process 
today and right now by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues from Nevada for 
allowing us to have this debate once again.
  Two weeks ago, we had this debate on the floor of the House. We had a 
pretty good vote, a bipartisan vote: 340 of our colleagues supported 
continuing to move forward; 72 disagreed with that position.
  Part of this debate allows me to just lay out the true facts, and the 
facts are that this body and this Nation decided 30-plus years ago to 
address a national

[[Page H4950]]

problem with a national solution. So we have been moving forward as a 
Nation for 30 years--30 years, $15 billion, the most studied piece of 
ground on the planet. Fortunately, it is in the State of Nevada, and 
Nevada can claim that they have the safest location for a geological 
repository.
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in exhaustive research--and I was 
wrong. It wasn't 1,000 pages; it is 1,928 pages. This is one of five 
volumes.
  And, yes, the previous amendment was to say: Let's don't adjudicate 
the difference. My colleagues from Nevada keep saying it is not safe. I 
trust our independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission that says it is 
safe for a million years. The only way you resolve this is to follow 
the law and go through adjudication of the complaints.
  Now, the State of Nevada doesn't want to go through the adjudication 
because I believe that, once the science is debated, the decision will 
be in line with the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission and their 
exhaustive research.
  Now, let's talk about this current amendment. What this current 
amendment does is just says: Let's disregard the will of 49 States and 
our territories and 30 years of law to respond to the State of Nevada's 
opposition, not even scientifically based.
  So what does that mean? What it means is that spent nuclear fuel in a 
place in California--this is San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. It 
is between Las Vegas and San Diego. It is right on the Pacific Ocean. 
What it means is that it stays right there.
  What it means for my colleague  Dan Newhouse from Washington State is 
that the defense liability of Hanford, right on the Columbia River, 
stays right there.
  What it means for my friends in Chicago is that the Zion Nuclear 
Power Generating Station, right on Lake Michigan, stays right there.
  What about the Savannah River Site? Well, it stays right next to 
Savannah River versus 90 miles away in the desert, underneath a 
mountain, on Federal property.
  So when the local concern is addressed about the local issue, the 
local consensus is really the Department of the Interior, the 
Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. That Federal land 
is larger than the State of Connecticut. That is the local concern that 
we are dealing with and we are addressing here.

  This is all of the operating commercial nuclear power plants. That is 
why there are 31 States and 121 locations. And that is why this debate 
is important. Because more and more, as we are able to lay out the 
facts, the consensus by the national media is that it is time to move 
forward and finish the project, whether that is The Washington Post, 
The San Diego Union-Tribune, the Aiken Standard, the Los Angeles Times, 
or the Chicago Tribune.
  So I say to my colleagues, I understand the ``not in my backyard,'' 
but there is more nuclear spent fuel in Chicago, Illinois, in 
Chicagoland--in Chicagoland, not 90 miles away. And Chicago has 55 
million visitors, not 33 million--more than Las Vegas. It is not going 
to hurt their tourism. Actually, it is going to help diversify the 
economy.
  I understand the argument and debate. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for letting me address this again in this Chamber so that I 
can fully not only educate our colleagues but move the Nation forward.
  Mr. Chairman, 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. 33 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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 end of division A (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to sell the transmission assets of the Bonneville 
     Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, 
     the Western Area Power Administration, or the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment on a 
critical matter for the Bonneville Power Administration and our 
Nation's other power marketing administrations, or PMAs, including the 
Southwestern Power Administration and the Western Area Power 
Administration, as well as the Tennessee Valley Authority, or the TVA.
  The President's fiscal year 2019 budget request, released earlier 
this year, included a misguided proposal to sell the transmission 
assets of these entities. It is unfortunate this proposal was offered 
once again, as the matter was met with resounding rejection by Congress 
last year when it was offered in the fiscal year 2018 budget request.
  The sale of these assets would result in the Federal Government 
abandoning a successful and efficient solution for providing affordable 
power to rural, urban, and tribal communities across the country.
  This one-time Federal debt reduction proposal would create energy 
production and delivery issues for my constituents, as costs would 
inevitably rise.
  Mr. Chairman, this ill-advised proposal is once again a Federal 
attempt to fix something that is not broken.
  I fully support efforts to improve energy infrastructure across the 
Nation. However, I do not believe that this goal should come at the 
expense of existing infrastructure--infrastructure that successfully 
fills a need where market-based pricing would not be sustainable.
  My constituents, especially in rural communities, depend on the 
Bonneville Power Administration to provide stable and affordable 
electricity service. Divesting BPA's assets would create needless 
uncertainty for regional energy markets and ratepayers in central 
Washington.
  In a climate where BPA continues to face unnecessary challenges, 
whether from the imprudent Federal proposal to move to market-based 
rates or the incessant use of litigation brought forward by radical 
environmentalists for the past three decades, I offer this amendment 
which simply prohibits any funds from being used to sell the 
transmission assets of the three PMAs and the TVA.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Chairman, I come before the House today as a champion for the 
Bonneville Power Administration, an advocate for public power, and a 
steadfast representative for ratepayers across central Washington 
State, the greater Pacific Northwest, and the entire Nation. I 
encourage the administration to listen to this resounding bipartisan 
message that I bring along with my colleagues today: we reject this 
proposal and prohibit the divestment of these assets.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
amendment.
  The Tennessee Valley Authority is something that is important to us 
and to the nearly 10 million Tennessee Valley ratepayers that they 
serve each and every single day. As the gentleman said, something is 
not broken, so it does not need the Federal Government to come in and 
try to fix it.
  Mr. Chair, I stand with the gentleman supporting the PMA's, the TVA, 
and those that are utilizers of this service.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud my amendment is cosponsored by 
at least 18 bipartisan colleagues, and I would humbly urge the rest of 
my colleagues to support and vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H4951]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (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 918, 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, this is an amendment that I propose 
each and every year because I think this is something that is worthy of 
discussion.
  We are facing $21 trillion in debt in this Nation. We have annual 
deficits that continue to climb. We have to look at how you are going 
to grow your way and cut your way out of this Nation's debt.
  Now, we know that this appropriations bill is something that is at 
$44.75 billion. A lot of hard work by the members of the Appropriations 
Committee has gone into this. We appreciate that they have made an 
effort to keep the spending down, even some years they have been below 
the level that was actually enacted the previous year. This year that 
is not the case. They are a little bit above, but they are working 
diligently, and I am grateful for that.
  I think we need to work a little bit harder, and that is why I bring 
this, a penny out of a dollar, one penny, making that type rescission 
in what we are spending, making certain that we are engaging rank-and-
file Federal employees after they receive their appropriated funds, 
saying: ``Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's take one penny out 
of every dollar we spend.'' We are doing it for our children and our 
grandchildren, facing the fact that our Nation has a climbing debt.
  Now, Admiral Mullen said July 6, 2010: ``The greatest threat to our 
Nation's security is our Nation's debt.''
  This is an issue that deserves a better effort. We have given it good 
efforts. Let's give it a better effort and give it our best effort to 
get this spending under control.
  The reason, with these discretionary funds, we say let's do it with 
across-the-board cuts is because across-the-board spending reductions 
work. It has been proven by many of our States, where Democratic and 
Republican Governors have made across-the-board reductions in order to 
get budgets in balance. It is done by cities; it is done by counties; 
it is done by the private sector; it is done by families.
  It is time for us to engage the bureaucracy and say to them: ``Find 
one penny out of a dollar and help us preserve our freedom for future 
generations.''
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this would not be an appropriation bill if 
we didn't have this amendment before us. Every year, this amendment has 
been offered, and the gentlewoman from Tennessee and I have debated 
this many times in the past.
  While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect the 
taxpayers' dollars, this is not the approach that I would endorse nor 
can I support.
  The bill in its current form balances many of the needs. The bill 
prioritizes funding for national security and critical infrastructure, 
yet the gentlewoman's amendment proposes an across-the-board cut on 
every one of these programs, including increases in funding that are 
sorely needed to modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile and to protect 
our Nation's electrical grid from emerging cyber threats.
  Across-the-board cuts make no distinction between where we need to be 
spending or investing in our infrastructure, promoting jobs, and 
meeting our national security needs and where we need to limit spending 
to meet our deficit reduction goals. That is what we actually do when 
we write a bill in the Appropriations Committee and have the hearings 
and so forth.
  The main reason this bill is $1.5 billion above last year and the 
reason that the chairman gave this allocation to the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee is because there was a need in rebuilding our nuclear 
security infrastructure. That is where the majority of that money went.
  The next major portion of it went to the Army Corps of Engineers to 
build the waterways and infrastructure that need to be replaced. There 
is something like a trillion dollars--I know it is not the exact 
number, and I don't know if that is the correct number, but it is 
pretty close--of backlog, of needs within the Army Corps of Engineers, 
with an aging infrastructure: locks and dams, harbors that need to be 
maintained for our economy, that need to be dredged. That is where the 
majority of that money went. That is why the Appropriations Committee 
put the additional $1.5 billion into this.
  Yes, reducing the deficit and addressing our debt are critical things 
that need to get done, too, but everyone here, including the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee, who is my good friend, knows that it is not 
the discretionary spending that is driving this debt and deficit each 
year; it is the huge increases in mandatory spending. Those are 
primarily Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, interest on the 
debt. That is what is driving the debt.
  If you look back 40 or 50 years ago, out of the entire Federal 
budget, 70 percent of it was discretionary spending. That is what we 
spend money on that everybody thinks as government when they think of 
government. About 30 percent of it was the mandatory programs.
  It has reversed. Now a little over 70 percent of the Federal 
Government is mandatory. It is on autopilot. Unless we change the law 
underneath it and have the courage to do that, it continues to grow.
  If you look at our budget today on the discretionary side, we spend 
less today than we did in 2010. That is 8 years later. We spend less 
today on discretionary spending than we did in 2010. That is the 
reality.
  So while I appreciate the effort to address the debt and the deficit, 
this is not the way to do it. It is not addressing the main problem 
that is driving our debt.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I would just say, you know, there used to be an old expression. They 
asked Jesse James, ``Why do you rob banks.'' He said, ``That is where 
the money is.''
  So I think about the situation we face in our country today. I am not 
willing to take the money out of this budget, which I consider critical 
to America's security at home and abroad, and meanwhile, in other fora, 
to give trillions of dollars to the top 1 percent in this country who 
aren't really interested in what we are doing here much, don't 
appreciate it sometimes. I am not willing to leave off the hook the 
Wall Street bankers that took us into the 2008 recession, not a single 
one went to jail.
  It is interesting where the gentlewoman is looking for money. One of 
the reasons I chose to be on this subcommittee is I am sick of going to 
war for energy. Too many people from my region have died.
  I think part of America's solution is becoming energy independent and 
being able to conduct war where we have to. This bill allows us to do 
that for the sake of the Republic.
  I think the gentlewoman has a good intention to try to balance the 
budget. I think she is looking at the wrong end of the telescope.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, when you talk about where you are 
looking for money, it is coming out of the hardworking taxpayers' 
pocket. And what they say is, ``Do something about the debt,'' because 
they are the ones who are footing the bill.
  Now, it is easy for us to say, yes, the mandatory spending eats up 
most of the budget. That is very true. The chairman is correct on that. 
But is that a reason to not do something about discretionary? 
Absolutely not.
  Should we continue to exercise the ability to find efficiencies, to 
try to do more with less? Absolutely, we should.

[[Page H4952]]

  Should we make government more effective, more efficient, and more 
responsive? Should we utilize new technologies? Absolutely, we should, 
because every penny that we appropriate in this Chamber comes from the 
taxpayers of this Nation, who are working hard. They know government 
never runs out of an appetite for their money. They know that 
government is always going to ask for more. They are looking at the $21 
trillion in debt.
  Let's take these steps. Let's cut a penny out of a dollar and do it 
because we know this debt is going to land on the heads of our children 
and our grandchildren.
  Mr. Chair, 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. 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 Tennessee 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 35 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  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 A, 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 918, 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, all over the Nation, we face a series 
of disasters that come in many different forms: fires, volcanoes, and 
heavy rain.
  My amendment deals with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 
important aspect of its investigatory work by redirecting $3 million 
for increased funding for postdisaster watershed assessment studies 
that are typical across the Gulf region and even up the East Coast, 
where we know Hurricane Sandy was devastating just a few years ago.
  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.

                              {time}  2015

  My amendment would address the question of pre-preparedness. As we 
were facing the disaster of Hurricane Harvey, so many wondered how much 
more we should have pre-prepared.
  Many were aware of the fact that we flooded in 500-year and 1,000-
year flood areas. We are aware of the devastation in Puerto Rico and 
the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  The Army Corps of Engineers can be very instrumental in assessing 
ahead of time the potential impact of flood and storm damage and, 
through the investigations, can reduce this and create savings.
  I am optimistic, as we go forward, and hopeful that we will receive 
in the Gulf region a regional watershed assessment flood risk 
management feasibility study.
  But I think it is important to note that we are probably not out from 
under the weather of future disasters. On April 15, 2016, 240 billion 
gallons of water fell in the Houston area over a 12-hour period and, as 
well, 2016, another major flood causing major damage.
  And, finally, this is not atypical, it seems, as we watched the 
hurricane season of last year all over the Gulf region and we found 
Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons and 300,000 homes were 
lost.
  So the investigatory part of the Army Corps of Engineers is an 
important tool for the whole Nation when it comes to dealing with pre-
preparedness and assessing how we can do better in natural disasters.
  Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk; it is number 35 on the 
roster.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur 
for shepherding this legislation to 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 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.
  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 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.
  Some of 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.
  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 emphasis of the study, which covers 22 primary watersheds 
within Harris County's 1,735 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. The 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.

[[Page H4953]]

  The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 35 is particularly important in light 
of the devastation of Hurricane Harvey and its aftermath.
  At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was underwater 
due to Hurricane Harvey flooding.
  There was over 41,500 square miles of land mass impacted by Hurricane 
Harvey and the subsequent flooding that covered an area larger than the 
States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and 
Vermont combined.
  Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and 
Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex.
  In September 2017, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory reported that 
Hurricane Harvey's rainfall created 275 trillion pounds of water, which 
caused the crust in and around Houston to deform and sink nearly 1 inch 
because of the weight.
  Over 300,000 structures flooded in southeastern Texas, where extreme 
rainfall hit many areas that are densely populated.
  Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. 
in our nation's history.
  Hurricane Harvey damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were 
destroyed.
  Texas flood control districts are still struggling to recover from 
this record breaking flood event.
  Nineteen trillion gallons of flood waters poured into the Houston 
Ship Channel from area rivers and bayous on the way to the Gulf of 
Mexico.
  As a consequence, tens of millions of tons of sediment and debris 
flowed through the biggest waterway in the nation.
  Today, the Port of Houston is operating with draft restrictions that 
may last a year or longer.
  Draft restrictions are adding costs to oil and gas and Petrochemical 
operations, which are passed on to wholesalers, who pass these costs to 
consumers at the pump.
  The Port of Houston produces 27 percent of the nation's gasoline and 
about 60 percent of the U.S. aviation fuel.
  Investments in all aspects of our nation's water infrastructure pays 
dividends in the form of economic activity.
  The Houston Ship Channel generates $617 billion in the U.S. with $265 
billion of that in Texas representing 16 percent of the state of 
Texas's GDP.
  The Port of Houston sustains 2.7 million jobs nationally with 1.2 
million of them within the state of Texas.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 
35.
  I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work in 
shepherding this bill to the floor.
  I am asking my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me assure my colleague that I understand her interest in 
addressing flood risks in her district. In fact, the Appropriations 
Committee has worked very hard to prioritize these activities, 
including significant funding in the supplemental bill earlier this 
year, in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations act, and this fiscal year 
2019 bill before us today.
  Since the amendment does not change funding levels within the bill, I 
will not oppose the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First of all, let me thank the chairman of the committee for what has 
been ongoing support of our efforts. And I hope he sees that these are 
efforts for across the Nation as well.
  To be clear, I am glad that we do not alter the account but we 
redirect and focus moneys on this important investigatory area. I thank 
him for his support.
  I would be happy to yield to the ranking member, who, likewise, has 
helped me over the years to address this question of flooding.
  But I want to make the point that what we saw in the last hurricane 
season is that it reaches across the Gulf region, including the U.S. 
Virgin Islands and, of course, Puerto Rico.
  I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank Congresswoman 
Jackson Lee for yielding and for the incredible work she does 
representing the Gulf region in its fullness.
  I understand, through her and through my own studies, the damage done 
by Hurricane Harvey and the need for studies such as these to advance 
flood control projects to mitigate future damage. I think she has been 
such an articulate spokeswoman, reminding us that times are changing 
and we have to pay attention to coastal communities.
  I have to also mention that there are funds in the supplemental bill 
we passed earlier this year for purposes such as these, and we have 
plussed up the Army Corps budget in this particular bill. So I think 
that will serve Texas very well.
  And the gentlewoman mentioned the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. We 
are all deeply concerned.
  So I thank my colleague for offering this amendment. I thank her for 
her great leadership and urge all of our colleagues to support her 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me take this moment again to acknowledge the funds that have been 
put into this bill that focuses on what we experienced in the last 
year. And I would indicate that the investigatory account, which will 
see this focus, is important. The dollars that we have received from 
this Congress I do appreciate.
  And the final word I would say in closing is that we work and hope to 
work with the administration for those funds to get to the local 
jurisdictions. We are right in the middle of trying to get those 
dollars down from Washington into our local jurisdictions.
  With that, I thank the manager and the chairman and the manager who 
is ranking member again and ask my colleagues to support the Jackson 
Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, 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. 36 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  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 A (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 918, 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, this is an educational amendment, if 
you will. It is to emphasize the importance of the Department of 
Energy's program that deals with the emphasizing of educating minority 
students across America with STEM. Now we have moved and advanced to 
STEAM. That includes arts.
  But the Office of Minority Impact that is in the DOE has as its major 
focus--and we are still behind in the numbers--to ramp up the numbers 
of men and women and minorities in the STEM effort. Women and 
minorities make up 70 percent of college students but only 45 percent 
of undergraduate STEM degree holders.
  If we are to be a 21st century and 22nd century country--and as I was 
sitting in some meetings today--competing with countries on the 
question of cybersecurity--I know that we are in the Energy and Water 
approps, but if we are to reach beyond the boundaries of research that 
help in energy and water, I think it is important that we continue to 
try and do outreach to increase the numbers of women and minorities to 
go into the STEM fields.
  The energy and science education programs funded in part by this bill

[[Page H4954]]

will help ensure that members of underrepresented communities are not 
placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environmental 
sustainability, preservation, and health. The larger point is that we 
need more STEM educators and more minorities to qualify for those 
positions.
  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 add to the others and will come up with some of the 
major solutions in our time.
  I would offer to say that education efforts with teachers and 
students under this program are extremely important because the 
students of today, teachers who are teaching the students of today, are 
the scientists and problem-solvers of tomorrow.
  So I again want to emphasize to my fellow Texan, Secretary Perry, who 
is Secretary of the Department of Energy, to focus and to grow the 
department that deals with educating young people in the science, 
technology, engineering, and math. We are waiting for them. We need 
them, and the Nation needs them.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I 
conclude by saying: Let's provide more opportunity for these students.
  I want to emphasize the Energy Institute High School in Houston and, 
as well, to cite high schools across the Nation that are working to 
provide these students with this kind of training. And I hope these 
dollars will help them do so.
  I ask for the support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 36.
  I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for 
shepherding this legislation to the floor and for it 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. 36 simply provides that:
  ``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.).''
  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 and on July 7, 
2017, during this Congress as an amendment to H.R. 3219, the Energy and 
Water Resources Appropriations Act of 2018.
  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. 
36.
  Mr. Chairman, 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.


                Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. DeSantis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. 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 A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to purchase heavy water from Iran.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple limitation 
amendment. No funds made available by this act may be used to purchase 
heavy water from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  Why are we doing this? Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of 
terrorism, fomenting discord all across the Middle East, funding Hamas 
in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon while supporting the Houthis 
in Yemen.
  Iran provided deadly, military-grade explosives to militias in Iraq, 
killing hundreds of American servicemembers during Operation Iraqi 
Freedom. Iran has never been held accountable for that. They still have 
major control over portions of Iraq, and the Shiite militias they back 
are running rampant.
  Furthermore, we know that Iran is working to be the key outside 
player in Syria in an effort to expand control from the Persian Gulf to 
the Mediterranean Sea.
  As you know, the JCPOA was effectively an Obama executive agreement, 
never ratified by Congress or enacted into law. It was sold using lies 
and propaganda, and it provided Iran with an economic lifeline. It 
provided Iran with $150 billion in sanctions relief and even airlifted 
$1.7 billion in cold, hard cash to Tehran.
  Just yesterday, we learned that the Obama administration secretly 
granted a license authorizing the conversion of Iranian assets worth 
billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system despite 
repeated assurances to the public and Congress that Iran would not be 
granted access to the U.S. financial system.
  The Obama administration continually offered gratuitous concessions 
to Iran that went beyond even the unilateral concessions contained in 
the Iran deal.
  And that is where this heavy water limitation amendment comes in. The 
Obama administration was using tax dollars to purchase heavy water from 
Iran. That is money over and above what the Iran deal provided. And 
that damage has been significant.
  Now, President Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the JCPOA. My 
amendment, though, is simple. We just should not use tax dollars to 
subsidize Iran's nuclear activities through the purchase of heavy 
water.
  I don't think the President would want to do that, but I think it is 
important that we continue with this in

[[Page H4955]]

law, which we have had now for over a year. I think it will ensure that 
the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, though 
I think he intends it well.
  I want to inform him that the Department of Energy has said it does 
not have plans to purchase additional heavy water from Iran. So I think 
this amendment is really irrelevant.
  Frankly, I would rather that the United States take whatever Iran has 
rather than letting them sell it to Russia or somebody else. But the 
Department of Energy has clearly said they don't have plans to purchase 
additional heavy water from Iran.
  And so the gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  I just urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment. It has 
been in law before. We have passed it out of this House 2 years in a 
row. We should do it again.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2030


                 Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Norman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 
printed in part B of House Report 115-711.
  Mr. NORMAN. 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:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  The total amount of appropriations made available 
     by this Act is hereby reduced by $1,500,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, with the passage of the bipartisan budget 
agreement back in February, Congress essentially gave themselves a 
blank check to spend billions and billions more of taxpayers' dollars 
over the next two fiscal years.
  Our national debt stands at over $21 trillion and we decided to spend 
more. How does that make any sense? People back home continuously ask 
me why our government keeps spending and spending. You know what I tell 
them? I have no idea. I have no idea why Members of Congress willingly 
go along with this abysmal continued spending. I have no idea why we 
would cut taxes for millions of Americans, grow our economy 
exponentially, and then decide to spend more.
  If anything, now is the time to get spending under control. Now is 
the time to rein in reckless spending habits. My amendment should not 
even be controversial. It simply cuts spending back to what they were 
last year. $1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to our 
national debt. We need to start somewhere.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Tenney). The gentleman from Idaho is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
While I agree with my colleague that we need to be finding savings 
where possible, this amendment is not the approach that I can support.
  The bill in its current form takes a balanced approach to meet a 
number of needs, not just wants or wishes or anything else, but actual 
needs. The bill prioritizes funding for national security and critical 
infrastructure and reduces funding for certain activities that did not 
need sustained funding at prior year levels to accomplish their mission 
in fiscal year 2019.
  These tradeoffs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts, 
and the increases proposed are responsible and, in some cases, are 
absolutely essential.
  Approximately half of the funding in this bill is for national 
defense activities. This bill includes $15.3 billion for the Department 
of Energy's nuclear weapons security program which provides funding to 
maintain our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and for the Navy's 
nuclear propulsion programs that supports our Navy's fleet of 
submarines and aircraft carriers and for nonproliferation activities 
that are reducing global nuclear threats.
  In February, the administration released a Nuclear Posture Review 
that described a sobering view of the current global nuclear threat 
situation.
  Russia is modernizing its full range of nuclear systems.
  China is modernizing and expanding its already considerable nuclear 
forces, pursuing entirely new capabilities.
  North Korea's nuclear provocations threaten regional and global 
peace.
  Iran's nuclear ambitions remain an unresolved concern.
  Global nuclear terrorism remains a tangible threat. This amendment 
would slash funding for the activities in this bill that are an 
integral part of the United States' national security strategy to 
address these nuclear threats.
  For that and many other reasons, I would oppose the gentleman's 
amendment and suggest that maybe we ought to look at what is causing 
the debt to go up, and that is the mandatory spending and not the 
discretionary spending that we have. I would urge my colleagues to vote 
against the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I just wanted to say, the gentleman who is offering this amendment, I 
oppose the amendment, and you and I view the world very differently.
  I view the Government of the United States as a bulwark for social 
and economic stability in this country. If I look at why we have a 
deficit going back, one of the reasons is oil wars.
  This department is one of the most important departments in the 
country to lead us to energy independence as a country. I don't think 
we should do what you are asking us to do here. If we look at our trade 
deficit, we haven't had balanced trade accounts since the mid-1970s.
  Adding trillions of dollars to our trade deficit every year is making 
it harder to fund Social Security and Medicare, programs that are 
essential to social stability in this country. If we look at the 2008 
crash and the trillions of dollars that cost us as a country, nobody on 
Wall Street went to jail.
  It is interesting to me where people want to pick away, pick away, 
pick away when you look at the big money, the moneys for war, the money 
for paying for imported goods as opposed to producing here at home, the 
causes of what happened in 2008, and there was no justice that was 
given to the Republic.
  So, to me, energy independence is critical, if you look at the 
trillions we have added to the deficit because of war. So we look at 
the country through different ends of the telescope, I think, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I really think the result of your amendment will be less investment 
in the Republic, less investment in water resource infrastructure and 
energy development, and less investments that create good jobs and have 
substantial returns on investments such as modernizing our ports and 
all of the infrastructure that helps us to achieve social and economic 
stability in this country, which isn't easy to do.
  So I thank my colleagues for listening, and I would urge opposition 
to this amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H4956]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Weber of Texas) having assumed the chair, Ms. Tenney, 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. 
5895) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________