[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.
____________________