[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 94 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4964-H4977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2019

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 923 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5895.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  2153


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5895) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2019, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren (Acting Chair) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today 
pursuant to House Resolution 923, amendment No. 1 printed in part B of 
House Report 115-712 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Nolan) had been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part B of 
House Report 115-712.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Ms. ESHOO. 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 21, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, first, I want the House to know that this is 
a bipartisan amendment.
  This amendment provides a $1 million increase for the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to fund the development and 
deployment of high-efficiency linear generator technology.
  Linear generators convert fuel and air into electricity with the same 
efficiency and near zero emissions as the highest performing fuel cells 
on the market, and they are superior to many legacy fuel cells. But 
instead of using an electrochemical process like fuel cells, linear 
generators use an electromechanical process that relies on only two 
moving parts and no oil, which reduces capital and maintenance costs 
and results in a life span of three to four times greater than a 
traditional fuel cell.
  Equally as important, linear generators are dispatchable and can 
provide electricity even when the electricity grid is down. This is 
especially valuable in areas recently hit by hurricanes like Puerto 
Rico and Houston, Texas, and other extreme weather events like last 
year's wildfires in northern California.
  Linear generators also provide resilient baseload power, which 
eliminates the need for expensive, unreliable, and dirty diesel back-up 
generators.
  At its heart, this amendment is about investing in the future of 
energy production, and it is about laying the groundwork for the 
innovators in our country to do what they do best: outperform the 
status quo and outcompete the rest of the world.
  The United States has been a global leader in the development of 
energy efficiency technology, reducing energy costs and increasing 
reliability for consumers. But we are in danger of falling behind our 
foreign competitors.
  Mr. Chairman, linear generator technology was born in my Silicon 
Valley district by some of the best and the brightest minds from 
Stanford University. And although this technology is substantially 
similar to fuel cells, it faces an uphill battle and an uneven playing 
field in bringing these products to market, despite the many benefits 
of the technology itself.

                              {time}  2200

  This amendment will ensure that the Fuel Cell Technologies Office at 
the DOE invests in the next generation of fuel cell technologies and 
maintains U.S. leadership in this critical field.
  Mr. Chair, it is nice not to have any opposition, so I urge my 
colleagues to support the next generation of fuel cell technologies and 
vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Perlmutter

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. 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 21, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.

[[Page H4965]]

  

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chair, I offer a simple amendment today to 
increase funding for DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's 
facilities and infrastructure account by $5 million.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of 
the Energy and Water Subcommittee for their support of the facilities 
account over the last few years.
  As Chairman Hultgren knows, I represent Golden, Colorado, and the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL is the premier energy 
efficiency and renewable energy lab in the world. For more than 40 
years, NREL has led the charge in research and design of renewable 
energy products affecting the way we utilize and secure American 
energy. Labs like NREL are working to bring life-changing technological 
innovations to the market so we can better power our Nation and reduce 
costs for our customers.
  The facilities account supports NREL by funding operation of the 
Energy Systems Integration Facility, general operations, safety and 
security of the lab, as well as maintenance and replacement of 
infrastructure and equipment at NREL. This is the account that enables 
NREL to focus its research dollars directly into new research and 
technologies.
  The bill in front of us today makes significant investments in 
infrastructure and equipment at many of DOE's other 16 national labs, 
including through the Office of Science. NREL has those same needs for 
modest investments in new equipment to stay on the cutting-edge and 
avoid losing American leadership in materials, research, high-
performance computer modeling, and more.
  Congress has supported DOE's national labs and science activities 
very well in the last 2 years, yet EERE's facilities account has 
remained flat.
  This $5 million increase is needed this year to fund a growing list 
of equipment and maintenance needs at NREL, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  It takes $5 million from the administration account and adds $5 
million to the facilities account.
  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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The bill provides $92 million for the facilities and infrastructure 
program within the EERE account. That level fully funds operation and 
maintenance activities at NREL and is the same amount as was 
appropriated last year.
  In light of EERE being reduced by $243 million compared to last 
year's level, I would say that the bill contains very strong support 
for NREL's operations and maintenance activities.
  This amendment goes too far in increasing an account that already has 
strong support.
  Additionally, I am concerned that the amendment would have unintended 
consequences in taking away strategic funding from the departmental 
administration account.
  Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I must oppose the amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
amendment.
  The facilities account at NREL has been held flat. We need to boost 
and improve some of the equipment there. So I think this is a needed 
amendment, and I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hastings

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. HASTINGS. 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 22, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $7,666,667)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chair, let me say at the outset to the chairman and 
ranking member, that I do not intend to ask for a recorded vote on this 
measure. I thought earlier today that I would withdraw the amendment, 
but in light of the fact that we are here in the middle of the night, I 
decided I may as well make my point.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase funding for cybersecurity 
of the electric power grid by $5 million, offset by reductions in 
fossil energy research and development.
  Like almost everyone in this body, I am deeply concerned about the 
cybersecurity of our Nation's electric power grid.
  I don't know how many of you know that yesterday there was a major 
outage--that hadn't reached the news, for some reason--of the Comcast 
telephone network. I don't think there was anything untoward with 
reference to it, at least it hadn't been reported.
  The mere fact is that we are more reliant than ever on this Nation's 
power grid to provide electricity to the massive amount of technologies 
that contribute to our country every single second: cellular 
communications equipment; heating and cooling to our workplaces--
especially cooling in this particular workplace that seems to be 
overused, in my opinion--and homes; lights to guide us at night on 
highways; and on and on.
  While we have never been more dependent on electricity, our electric 
energy grid has never been as vulnerable as it is today.
  With the rise of nation-state-supported computer hackers in countries 
like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and the rogue hackers, the 
computers that control our power networks are increasingly seen as the 
most impactful targets for those who wish to do us harm.
  Outages from such attacks will cause harm not only to our national 
security, but our economic stability as well. They will hurt, to name 
just a few, hospitals, banks, factories, financial networks, water 
systems, telecommunications, and military bases.
  I believe that we must work with those who operate our grid to give 
them the tools they need to detect and prevent malicious actors from 
causing damage to our electric system and critical infrastructure.
  This funding of $5 million that I would request, and will again 
somewhere, is just a fraction of what is needed, but it sends a signal 
at least that we are serious about addressing this vulnerability, and 
that is my purpose here this evening.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back 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. Chair, I agree with everything the gentleman just 
said, but I disagree with the amendment. Everything he said is 
absolutely accurate.
  My colleague's amendment would increase funding for the 
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, or CESER, 
account, by using the Fossil Energy account as an offset.
  I share my colleague's support for the important work funded by the 
CESER account, and the underlying bill reflects that support. In fact, 
the CESER account was provided an increase of $50 million over last 
year's level. That is a 52 percent increase in this bill. Put another 
way, that is the single largest percentage increase in any account in 
this bill.
  I support the CESER account and efforts to enhance the cybersecurity 
and resilience of our electrical grid. That is why the bill provides 
the highest level of funding these research and development activities 
have ever had.
  However, my colleague's amendment would take away funds from other 
important research and development activities.
  The Fossil Energy account focuses on research and development 
activities that ensure the Nation is using its abundant natural 
resources as safely, cleanly, and efficiently as possible.

[[Page H4966]]

  Targeted increases to the Fossil Energy account support technological 
advances in carbon capture, carbon storage, and advanced energy 
generation technologies.
  Cuts to the Fossil Energy account threaten these innovations.
  In light of the robust support for the CESER account in the 
underlying bill and the unintended consequences this amendment may have 
on the Fossil Energy account, I must oppose the amendment, but I will 
tell my colleague that I look forward to working with him to address 
this concern that ought to concern all of us.
  Cybersecurity is a huge issue, and I think it is going to be one of 
the biggest things we face in the coming years.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 6 will not 
be offered.


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. 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 33, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $24,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $24,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Simpson and 
Ranking Member Kaptur and all their subcommittee colleagues for, again, 
putting together a strong Energy and Water appropriations bill this 
year.
  As the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I know how 
crucial that bill is to our national defense.
  The Atomic Energy Defense activities funded by this bill and 
authorized by the NDAA are critical to our nuclear deterrent, and that 
nuclear deterrent is not just the warheads and missiles over in DOD; it 
is also the people, capabilities, and infrastructure in DOE. Together, 
they comprise our nuclear deterrent.
  My amendment would align a key aspect of this appropriations bill 
related to DOE's nuclear weapons infrastructure with the fiscal year 
2019 NDAA that the House passed 2 weeks ago by a bipartisan vote of 
351-66.
  My amendment provides $24 million in funding to the Material Staging 
Facility project, which will enable huge security improvements, 
operational efficiencies, and billions in long-term cost savings at the 
Pantex plant in Texas.
  This project was initiated in the fiscal year 2018 NDAA and fiscal 
year 2018 omnibus appropriations bill, because Congress recognized its 
importance.
  My amendment would ensure that this project stays on track and align 
with its fiscal year 2019 appropriation and with the fiscal year 2019 
NDAA authorization.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting what they 
have already supported in the NDAA and vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for his support 
for and active lobbying for the weapons activities that are so vital to 
our country. He makes sure that we do our job here.
  Mr. Chair, I have no problem with the amendment, and hope it will 
pass.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  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--Construction'', and increasing the amount 
     made available for the same account, by $100,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, 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, again, I offer my appreciation both to 
the Rules Committee and to the chairman and ranking member.
  This is to emphasize the need for funding in the Army Corps of 
Engineers. It is an amendment that increases and decreases by $100 
million, with the focus on the construction account.
  I hold up examples of construction projects that are necessary, not 
only in the Gulf region, but projects that are necessary across the 
Nation.

                              {time}  2215

  That is, of course, dams, reservoirs, reservoir pools, and other 
areas that can be devastated by disaster. And so this amendment is to 
emphasize the Army Corps of Engineers construction account, 
particularly dealing with the need for repair to river and harbor, 
flood and storm damage, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration 
and, as well, to include the need to deal with our ports.
  So my amendment is, again, to reflect on the devastation of the storm 
that occurred over the last year. With the prediction of 14 storms 
coming in 2018, approximately five or so to be of monumental impact and 
hitting the Gulf Region, it is imperative that the Army Corps of 
Engineers move on their construction account and move on their 
construction projects to avoid some of the disaster that we have 
already experienced.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  In concluding, let me emphasize the Port of Houston, which truly 
needs the Army Corps of Engineers' efforts, particularly in dredging. 
We are a manmade port. That is a very important aspect of our work, and 
that is construction work.
  The Port of Houston today 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.
  It is also well known that the work that the Army Corps of Engineers 
does in respect to repair helps the environment. So again, I ask my 
colleagues to support the amendment, what is a focus on the Army Corps 
of Engineers' construction account, but I would like to make the 
additional point that we, in the region, need an expedited utilization 
of those dollars to fix the repairs, prepare us for oncoming potential 
disasters not only in my particular State, but across the region.
  I 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. 9 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. LaMALFA. 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:

[[Page H4967]]

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the criteria of abandonment described in 
     provision G of provision V of the rule published in the 
     Federal Register at 58 Fed. Reg. 45008 (relating to Clean 
     Water Act Regulatory Programs).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today aims to protect private 
property rights of farmers and ranchers by upholding the longstanding 
policy of ``once a PCC, always a PCC,'' otherwise known as a prior 
converted cropland.
  There are over 53 million acres of prior converted cropland 
throughout the country, and for more than 30 years, both Congress and 
the administration have clearly stipulated these lands were not waters 
of the United States. These are lands that have been previously 
cleared, drained, or otherwise altered and operated for decades of 
farming activity. They do not have the same geographical values as a 
wetland and should not be regulated as such.
  This view was further reinforced by the Clinton administration in its 
1993 wetlands plan, specifically exempting prior converted cropland 
from this regulation. This should apply regardless of any change in 
use, including agriculture back to non-agriculture use.
  However, in recent years, the EPA and Army Corps have used a creative 
interpretation of their abandonment criteria to regulate prior 
converted cropland, massively devaluing farmland that had been 
previously converted from wetlands for the purpose of agriculture 
decades before.
  We have already seen this in a number of cases, where the EPA 
presumes cropland is under their jurisdiction unless the property owner 
proves otherwise, either through lengthy and expensive soil testing or 
by taking land out of production and fallowing it for years.
  If this rule continues, there is no obstacle to prevent agencies from 
applying this more broadly, including to any project in the U.S. being 
planned on prior converted croplands actively used for agriculture 
production.
  Furthermore, this regulation has set a terrible precedent by being 
authored in the Federal Register, where there is no public comment or 
review period.
  My amendment seeks to unify the policy of the United States 
Department of Agriculture on prior converted cropland with the EPA, 
and, indeed, once it is a prior cropland, it is always a prior 
cropland, regardless of its use.
  By unifying these policies, this amendment will ensure that all prior 
converted croplands that are exempt will remain protected from 
overregulation and reinterpretation of the Army Corps and EPA.
  My amendment will not force wetlands back into agricultural lands. It 
will not prevent any current wetlands from being regulated as wetlands. 
This simply says that the land we have already converted away from 
wetlands will stay that way, not be unfairly regulated under the intent 
of Congress when this legislation was originally passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, essentially, the LaMalfa amendment would 
prohibit funds from being used to enforce the criteria for abandoned 
prior converted cropland. Currently, if land categorized as prior 
converted cropland has not been used for agricultural purposes for 5 
consecutive years, if the owner of that land wanted to fill or dredge 
it, they would need to get a section 404 permit from the Corps, and 
those are generally wetlands.
  So this amendment would basically create a ``once exempted from 
having to get a Section 404 permit, always exempted'' standard, 
overturning 35 years of Federal policy.
  The amendment makes a significant change to the Clean Water Act 
regulations, one that deserves thoughtful consideration. Under current 
law and regulation, activities that convert wetlands that occur as a 
part of existing ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture activities 
do not require section 404 wetlands permits.
  Let me repeat that for my colleagues. The Clean Water Act explicitly 
exempts certain activities from regulation, including normal 
agricultural activities like plowing fields, planting and harvesting 
crops, and maintaining irrigation and drainage ditches.
  The gentleman from California wants to go further than the exemptions 
already in the law and in the underlying bill. In his view, wetlands 
should be able to be filled, even when prior converted farmland has had 
no action or indication of actual agricultural use for 5 consecutive 
years; that is, there has been no cropping, no management, no 
maintenance activities related to agricultural production.
  I say to my dear colleague from California, it is hard to understand 
how prior cropland wouldn't be abandoned if none of the activities of 
farming are performed there for 5 consecutive years.
  I would also like to point out that this specific regulation has been 
on the books for 35 years; yet this amendment would overturn at least 
35 years of policy to create a ``once exempted, always exempted'' 
standard for any land that was ever used as farmland.
  Now, let me tell you, additionally, why this concerns me. According 
to the Ohio--my home State--Environmental Protection Agency, since the 
late 18th century, 90 percent of Ohio's wetland resources have been 
destroyed or degraded through draining, filling, or other modification. 
Because of the valuable functions the remaining wetlands perform, 
including filtration to adjoining lakes and streams, it is imperative 
to ensure that all impacts to wetlands are properly mitigated.
  Wetlands help filter impurities from water. Sediment settles out the 
runoff, and contaminants bind to plant surfaces in wetlands, resulting 
in improved water quality. Wetlands perform other valuable functions, 
including reducing flood flow and shoreline erosion control.
  In Ohio, we also depend upon our wetlands as a haven for rare and 
endangered plants, and one-third of all the endangered species depend 
on wetlands for survival; and many wetlands are important fish spawning 
and nursery areas, as well as nesting, resting, and feeding areas for 
waterfowl.

  So we should make certain that any changes we make to wetlands policy 
that may result in the destruction of these important ecological areas 
are evaluated carefully and that we not overturn decades-old policy 
lightly.
  It is for these reasons that I must respectfully oppose the 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply reiterates that the 
long-held policy that prior converted--and these are key words, ``prior 
converted croplands''--all these prior converted croplands were done 
over 30 years ago before laws were changed to prevent such activity of 
converting wetlands. Every intent of Congress, and even the Clinton 
administration, worked to clarify that you cannot use the Clean Water 
Act.
  Indeed, you talk about 40 years' worth of policy. It has only been in 
recent years that a more aggressive reinterpretation of policy by Army 
Corps and EPA has started coming after people requiring 404 permits if 
they choose to do something different with their own private land after 
5 years.
  This is affecting people in my own district, and they are losing 
million-dollar lawsuits because of this reinterpretation, not one set 
up by Congress when the original legislation was passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not prevent any 
current regulations on current wetlands. Again, it goes after the 
aggressive rulemaking that EPA, with their cohorts in the Army Corps, 
have put upon landowners and farmers and ranchers in more recent years.
  So, if we sit back and watch bureaucrats attempt to gain control over 
every ditch, puddle, and pond they can

[[Page H4968]]

get their hands on, then we are in a bad way in agriculture and, as 
well, the sacred private property rights our country is founded on. It 
is a major threat to the livelihood of ag and rural America.
  So, again, the intent here is not to roll back any current wetlands 
but simply to allow people, if they want to make crop changes, they 
want to make decisions on their land that they are paying the property 
tax on, they are paying the mortgage on, if they want to change their 
use of the land, they should have that right in the United States of 
America and not have to get permission for something that has been--the 
key words here--prior converted under the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for ``aye'' votes of this body, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. GOHMERT. 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 prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or 
     guidance that references or relies on the analysis contained 
     in--
       (1) ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for 
     Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'', 
     published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
     Carbon, United States Government, in February 2010;
       (2) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in 
     May 2013 and revised in November 2013;
       (3) ``Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and 
     Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 
     Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews'', published by the 
     Council on Environmental Quality on December 24, 2014 (79 
     Fed. Reg. 77801);
       (4) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in 
     July 2015;
       (5) ``Addendum to the Technical Support Document on Social 
     Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 
     Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the 
     Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous 
     Oxide'', published by the Interagency Working Group on Social 
     Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government, in August 
     2016; or
       (6) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States 
     Government, in August 2016.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits the use of funds 
to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or guidance related 
to the social cost of carbon.
  Social cost of carbon metric was a tool, and is a tool, used to 
bolster many Obama-era regulations. They supposedly targeted vague, 
ambiguous, and unverifiable costs.
  In an article this week, The Wall Street Journal points out that by 
introducing ``social costs'' and ``social benefits,'' the EPA began 
factoring in speculation about how regulatory inaction would affect 
everything from rising sea levels to pediatric asthma, EPA optimists 
even including their guesses about how domestic relationships could 
have a global impact.
  Meanwhile, the Agency ignored the best practices from the Office of 
Management and Budget, juking the numbers to raise the cost of carbon 
emissions. This proved as politically useful as it was scientifically 
imprecise.
  Months before introducing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA suddenly 
raised these social costs of a ton of carbon emissions to an average of 
$36 from $21, completely unverifiable.

                              {time}  2230

  Now, the regulatory specifics will be hashed out in coming months, 
but there is really potential here to curb the distortions that mask 
bad policy.
  If Mr. Pruitt succeeds, future cost-benefit analyses will be more 
consistent and transparent. The reform would help to ensure regulation 
is based on sound, scientific analysis instead of wishful bureaucratic 
thinking.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this is ultimately a tax on the Nation's 
poor. The rich, they can handle these added, superfluous costs that 
come out of the nebulous areas of bureaucrats' minds, but the real 
ultimate cost is actually to the Nation's poor.
  I can't help but go back to a woman, an elderly lady that lived 
outside of Carthage, Texas, that said: ``You know, I keep having these 
costs go up and up and up. I am afraid I am going to end up in my home 
going back to a wood-burning stove because of the Federal Government.''
  And I said: ``I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but 
your wood-burning stove you used when you were growing up that your 
mama used probably wouldn't be allowed today.''
  Anyway, there is no reason to have this kind of cost, and I would 
urge a passing of this amendment. Let's quit adding nebulous, 
unverifiable costs.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I have to oppose my good friend Mr. Gohmert on 
this amendment.
  The gentleman actually wants to prohibit funds from being used to 
implement any activities regarding the social costs of carbon. And this 
amendment tells the Department of Energy to ignore the latest 
meteorological data and changes dealing with weather science. And the 
amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful. According to this 
amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero.
  I remember my first trip to New York City after I graduated from 
college. Thank goodness it has changed. I had a pink blouse on. By the 
time I finished the first afternoon, it was so full of gray spots I 
hardly recognized it. And I didn't know what it was. Well, it was 
carbon. It was fallout from the chimneys and so forth in New York City.
  So we know that carbon has impacts. This amendment is tantamount to 
saying that weather changes and climate change have no cost and no one 
will get hurt. Well, that simply isn't true. Tell that to citizens in 
Puerto Rico who lost businesses, homes, and loved ones after Hurricane 
Maria, that there is no cost from weather changes.
  Last year's devastating hurricane season resulted in Puerto Ricans 
still without power 9 months later, almost 5,000 lives lost, and almost 
200,000 people displaced from their homes.
  House Republicans can vote for this amendment, they can try to block 
the Department of Energy from recognizing the damage caused by climate 
changes, but they can't overturn the laws of nature.
  I am amazed in my part of the country how much water is coming down 
now, spring rains at such fierce levels. The way they come, it is very 
different from when I was first growing up there.
  So, in the National Climate Assessment, our Nation's leading climate 
scientists reiterated what we have known for years: Climate change is 
real, evidenced by the climate-related indicators we have observed, 
including longer seasons, extreme droughts, and sea level rise.
  The amendment tells the Department to ignore these scientific 
findings. That is irresponsible and a blatant disregard to the well-
being and security of our great Nation, not just now but into the 
future.
  The truth is that unchecked climate change would have catastrophic 
impacts here in the United States and across the globe. They are 
already starting.
  Those who are less fortunate will face the heaviest impact. I 
remember going down to New Orleans and seeing the Ninth Ward. The 
poorest people in New Orleans lived in the Ninth Ward, and it was the 
most dangerous place to live.

[[Page H4969]]

  While claiming that climate change has no cost, House Republicans and 
the Trump administration seem to be arguing that they are the champions 
of the working class, decrying the critical EPA safeguards and their 
alleged impacts on working-class Americans and their access to 
healthcare.
  It is amazing to look at maps of where trees exist. Many times in 
cities across this country, where the poorest people live there are no 
trees. And there is a direct relationship between asthma, the lack of 
oxygen, and trees.
  So you don't have to pay attention to the science, but it is pretty 
clear.
  I think it is outrageous that the opposition party has the nerve to 
pose as the defenders of working-class Americans because, actually, you 
have a pretty poor record of defending those who are the poorest, 
ranging from dropping food stamps, to the GOP tax scam selling out 
Medicare and Medicaid to pay for corporate tax breaks, to Republican 
Governors deciding not to approve the expansion of Medicaid under the 
Affordable Care Act and now trying to get rid of people on insurance 
who have preexisting conditions, to failing to quickly provide funding 
resources and the necessary leadership to help the victims of last 
fall's hurricanes.
  The evidence is all out there if anybody cares to look. But to hear 
you tell the story, the only way to protect the health of America's 
workers and their children is to weaken longstanding public health 
protections.
  To say we should allow polluters to pollute more? That is nonsense. 
More air and water pollution won't make our Nation's citizens any 
healthier. More toxic pollution certainly isn't the answer. And the 
answer certainly isn't pretending that climate change won't have real 
costs to all Americans.
  I was interested to hear tonight some of our colleagues from New 
Mexico telling about how very, very dry New Mexico is, with one of the 
shortest snowfalls in history.
  So it is time to stop denying the science and accept reality: Climate 
change is occurring, it is caused by humans, and it is already causing 
serious damage.
  We are at the beginning of a new hurricane season, and now is not the 
time to pretend that extreme weather events, rising seas, and more 
frequent storms do not have a cost.
  Before the Trump administration abandoned common sense, the social 
cost of carbon was a very conservative calculation. The full costs of a 
rapidly changing climate are almost certainly significantly higher, but 
the social cost of carbon is a much, much better estimate than assuming 
the costs are zero.
  Unfortunately, that is what this amendment would require the 
government to assume: zero harm and zero cost from carbon pollution and 
climate change.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Pretending climate 
change doesn't exist won't make it go away.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I really have such great respect for my 
friend across the aisle, and I do truly mean that. But when I hear talk 
about what Republicans did to our Nation's poor and our seniors, I keep 
coming back to the ObamaCare vote, without a single one of the 
Republicans voting for that bill. Democrats have to take full credit. 
They passed it without a single Republican vote and cut $716 billion 
out of the healthcare of seniors.
  Now, President Obama told them: Seniors, you don't have to worry. It 
will only come out of the pockets of the rich, greedy doctors.
  Well, what our folks have found out is that is not the case at all. 
It has affected the elderly completely. It has been a real problem for 
them, because what they have seen is that, actually, if their 
healthcare provider doesn't get paid, they don't get their healthcare.
  So I would just like to say again, I need to urge people to vote for 
this amendment. Making our Nation's poor pay for ambiguous, unverified 
costs and saying we are somehow making the world better while they are 
making the poor poorer is absolutely unsubstantiatable, and I would 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 11 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. KILDEE. 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 64, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $250,000)''.
       Page 68, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $250,000)''.
       Page 68, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $250,000)''.
       Page 78, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $250,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment. It is very 
simple. It would expand the House Wounded Warrior Fellowship Program so 
that more wounded servicemembers have the opportunity to continue 
serving our country by working in congressional offices.
  We need more veterans in public service. They bring unique 
perspectives and experiences, unlike any other. The veterans that I 
have been fortunate enough to hire in my office have given me 
invaluable support and allowed me to consider issues that are important 
to veterans in an important and much more enlightened fashion. Their 
voices are important in this body, more now than ever.
  By investing in the Wounded Warrior Fellowship Program, more veterans 
will get a chance to serve. Expanding this program will enhance the 
professional development opportunities for those fellows.
  We in Congress do talk a lot about ways to help veterans transition 
following their service in the military. This is an opportunity for us 
to actually do something about that and model what we think all 
employers ought to be doing.
  It is a simple way to expand opportunities for veterans. It increases 
the number of veterans in public service. Again, in my office, I have 
benefited greatly from the veterans that I have hired. It is a 
bipartisan effort to continue to expand this program.
  I ask my colleagues to pass this amendment. It is a small way to not 
only improve the function of our own offices but also say thanks to the 
brave men and women who have given so much for the freedom that we all 
enjoy.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
his amendment. We are pleased to accept it. This is a remarkable 
program, and we want to honor those who serve and allow them to serve 
with us in a further capacity.
  I wanted to commend the gentleman. I believe we have about 110 
serving in congressional offices, and this will provide additional 
opportunities to some remarkable young men and women.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Esty of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. 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 H4970]]


  

       Page 64, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 66, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 67, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 79, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my 
amendment, which would allocate an additional $500,000 to the Office of 
Employee Assistance under the Office of the Chief Administrative 
Officer of the House of Representatives.
  The Office of Employee Assistance provides valuable services for 
Members of Congress and their staff. Unfortunately, this office is 
grossly understaffed. Currently, there are 6 staff in the Office of 
Employee Assistance to serve the 435 Members of Congress and their 
staff, a total of over 9,000 House employees.
  How could a staff of 6 possibly meet the needs of over 9,000 
employees? No company, no State or Federal agency would have an 
employee assistance staff of 6 to serve 9,000 employees. Neither should 
the House of Representatives.
  Managing a team of people and creating a positive workforce culture 
is a unique skill and challenging work. Managing people requires many 
skills, such as leadership, good communication, interpersonal skills, 
humility, and a good sense of humor.

                              {time}  2245

  Members of Congress and office supervisors such as chiefs of staff 
and legislative directors need additional resources to help them 
develop the skills to successfully lead their teams, establish a strong 
office culture, and make this House of Representatives a better place 
to work.
  Members of Congress have diverse backgrounds, levels of education, 
and work experience, as well as varying levels of comfort managing 
employees. We are elected to be great leaders, but in order to be 
effective and to be role models, we must also be great bosses.
  New and tenured Members of Congress would greatly benefit from more 
knowledge and support when it comes to successfully organizing their 
teams, hiring new employees, disciplining and evaluating staff, and 
handling employment complaints, including sexual harassment. The Office 
of Employee Assistance can and should be empowered to provide this 
support to every Member of Congress and all their staff.
  Chiefs of staff and legislative directors need the resources 
necessary to help them develop their supervisory skills and to succeed 
as managers. Chiefs of Staff and legislative directors are key to 
creating and maintaining a positive workplace culture and a 
professional office setting. The quality of their training shapes the 
culture of our offices.
  I don't claim to be an expert in this area. In fact, before I became 
a Member of Congress, I had very little experience as an employer, much 
less as a manager of 20 employees in two separate offices in two 
different parts of the country. Like all new Members, I was focused on 
doing what I was elected to do: helping the people of my district and 
working on issues important to them. I know now that I would have 
benefited as a new Member from more training and awareness of resources 
to assist me and my senior staff with running an effective and 
supportive office.
  At a time when this Congress rightly is being called upon to 
seriously address longstanding issues of sexual harassment in our 
workplace, we have an obligation to provide better resources to our 
colleagues and to our staff. Making more funds available to the Office 
of Employee Assistance is an important step for us to take in that 
effort. Our dedicated staff deserves better.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We would be very pleased to accept the 
gentlewoman's amendment. We commend the gentlewoman for her effort. We 
also commend the effort of those who work in this office dealing with 
many, many hundreds of cases. We are pleased to accept the amendment.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Again, they do heroic work, and they do 
important work. There aren't enough of them. I am hopeful for the 
support.
  I thank the gentleman for his support. I think this is a very 
important amendment for us to adopt to demonstrate our commitment to do 
better for all of our staff and to be leaders, not followers, in this 
effort for a supportive and inclusive workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Meadows

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. MEADOWS. 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 B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the amendment made by section 1501(d) of 
     the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 
     111-68; 123 Stat. 2041).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, initiating an independent counsel 
investigation comes with many political and constitutional challenges.
  These individuals were vested with full power and independent 
authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and 
powers of the Department of Justice with respect to matters within 
their jurisdiction.
  When the independent counsel statute was reauthorized in 1994, an 
amendment was made to the law requiring the Government Accountability 
Office to conduct periodic audits of independent counsel expenditures. 
This amendment gave Congress the ability to audit any and all 
independent counsel expenses and investigate how those taxpayer dollars 
were spent.
  This is an important procedure that was repealed in 2010, and it is 
time Congress act to restore this key oversight provision. My amendment 
reestablishes the semiannual Government Accountability Office financial 
review of obligated expenditures from the independent counsel and 
requires the report's findings to be submitted to Congress.
  While the work of an independent counsel is indeed important, it is 
just as important that we properly take account of where the 
hardworking American taxpayers' dollars go. So to ensure this 
accountability, I want to urge the passage of this amendment.
  I want to take one personal privilege of thanking the fine work of 
Chad Yelinski.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I understand that Mr. Meadows offers 
this amendment to try to attack Special Counsel Mueller and his team to 
imply that there is some sort of impropriety going on here with the 
Russian investigation.
  Of course, these improprieties aren't with the special counsel, Mr. 
Chair; the problems are with Russia and the people in our country, our 
political system, and our current administration who repeatedly 
communicated and met with Russian operatives during the Presidential 
campaign. But trying to muddy the waters by going after the integrity 
of the investigators is a classic tactic used by the people who feel 
threatened by an investigation because they know they have been caught.
  The bottom line is the way this amendment is drafted, it doesn't do 
anything. It says that no funds in the bill can be used to ``enforce'' 
a repeal of the provision of law that happened a

[[Page H4971]]

decade ago. Not enforcing a repeal is not the same as reinstating the 
provision that was repealed.
  This amendment was drafted in this tortured fashion to avoid 
violating the rules of the House that prohibit legislating on an 
appropriations measure. In any case, there is currently no independent 
counsel. Robert Mueller is a special counsel, and neither he nor the 
GAO would be affected if this amendment became law.
  Let me just suggest, Mr. Chair, that if people in this town are 
interested in ending this situation that we have going on, I would 
suggest that maybe the President of the United States call up Mr. 
Mueller, go and clear the air, tell the truth, say what he has to say, 
and let's move on as a country.
  For those reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting that the 
gentleman opposite would claim to know my motives in that he has not 
talked to me about it.
  I also find it very ironic that the gentleman makes the argument that 
my amendment does absolutely nothing and yet opposes it. So, indeed, if 
it does nothing, then I can't find any reason why he wouldn't support 
it.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly urge the adoption of my 
amendment, and being the late hour that it is, I yield back the balance 
of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. 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 North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Takano

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. TAKANO. 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 B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  There is appropriated, for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of Technology Assessment as authorized by the 
     Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (2 U.S.C. 471 et seq.) 
     $2,500,000, to be derived from a reduction of $3,463,000 in 
     the amount provided in this Act for the item for ``Architect 
     of the Capitol, Capital Construction and Operations''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Takano) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment, which would 
restore funding to the Office of Technology Assessment, or OTA.
  I would like to thank Representatives Foster, Esty, Delaney, 
Langevin, Lieu, and Lujan for offering this amendment with me.
  The foundation for good policy is accurate and objective analysis, 
and for more than two decades, the OTA set that foundation by providing 
relevant and unbiased technical and scientific assessments for Members 
of Congress and staff. In 1995, the OTA was defunded, stripping 
Congress of a valuable resource.
  Many of the issues OTA studied 20 years ago, like antibiotic-
resistant bacteria and electronic surveillance in the digital age, are 
even more pressing today.
  Mr. Chair, Congress needs access to unbiased technological expertise 
to weigh the pros and cons of policy questions surrounding 
cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and so many 
more matters. The recent Facebook hearings made it clear that many 
Members of Congress struggle to grasp the policy issues surrounding 
social media and data security.
  I applaud the chairman and ranking member for including a study in 
the underlying bill to look into the technological expertise available 
to Congress. It is an important first step, but it is not enough.
  Our amendment restores a modest $2.5 million to the OTA account for 
salaries and expenses to begin rebuilding the office. The cost is 
offset by a reduction to the AOC's capital construction and operations 
account. This administrative account will not take resources from 
specific construction projects.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment to 
restore funding to the Office of Technology Assessment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide funding 
to re-create a government agency, as the gentleman mentioned, which was 
defunded in 1995, 23 years ago. Before we re-create an entire 
government agency, I believe the most responsible thing to do is to 
study the need for such an agency and to identify the best path 
forward.
  After receiving dozens of requests advocating for the restoration of 
this funding, this bill has included, through the work of Chairman 
Yoder--and I am briefly taking his place and have the pleasure of 
working with Ranking Member Ryan.
  We have included in the report accompanying this bill language 
directing the Congressional Research Service to engage with the 
National Academy of Public Administration or a similar entity to 
produce a report detailing, first of all, the current technology 
assessment resources available to Members within the Government 
Accountability Office, to some extent, which has taken over this 
responsibility for the last 23 years; also to assess the potential need 
to create a separate entity; and, lastly, are there parts of what are 
being suggested here already duplicative within the available resources 
and services of the legislative branch?
  For this reason, I oppose the amendment and urge the Members to do so 
as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for helping me bring 
this amendment to the floor.
  We now live in a world where technology has become increasingly 
important in our personal lives, in our economy, and in our democracy, 
but Congress is not adequately prepared to lead on the technical issues 
that could have serious effects on our country's future.
  The Office of Technology Assessment would provide Congress with 
nonpartisan reports and realtime advice on issues that require 
leadership from lawmakers, including data privacy, artificial 
intelligence, cybersecurity, and others. When it was operating, 
lawmakers used the OTA's reports to make decisions that save taxpayer 
money, which is why this amendment received bipartisan support in the 
past.
  Before it was defunded, the OTA advised Congress, for example, on the 
importance of interoperability of electronic health records, advice 
that, had it been acted on, would have saved billions of dollars and 
thousands of lives.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and restore the OTA 
so Congress, once again, has access to credible and nonpartisan 
scientific expertise.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the GAO does most of what these 
gentlemen are seeking. I think, obviously, they have a certain feeling, 
and I respect those feelings. I don't think we need to create an 
agency, basically the duties of which have been taken, for the last 23 
years, by the Government Accountability Office.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to vote against the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan), the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I will brief.
  I want to lend my support. I think this is a good amendment, a 
positive

[[Page H4972]]

amendment. Things are moving so quickly in society, we need as much 
expertise as possible.
  So I thank the gentleman from California and urge an ``aye'' vote on 
this amendment.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the majority for including 
the report.
  I just want to remind the majority also that the OTA was never 
eliminated; it just was defunded. I believe it is time to fund it 
again.
  I refer back to the Facebook hearings in the Senate. I think people 
on both sides of the aisle, liberal and conservative, and think tanks 
observed that the first branch of government, which is the legislative 
branch of government, needs to have the resources and the capacity to 
do its own independent analysis.
  That is why I believe so many of my Republican colleagues will 
support this tomorrow. I hope everyone on both sides of the aisle 
supports 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 California (Mr. Takano).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. COHEN. 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 B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 512.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to purchase plastic drinking straws.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment, which is an environmental amendment, would prohibit 
the House from spending funds to purchase plastic drinking straws in 
our eating areas in the House.
  Plastic drinking straws are a considerable environmental risk to 
mammals and fish. They are dropped and discarded on the streets but 
particularly in the oceans. And they have had whales show up with 17 
pounds of plastic in their stomachs and tortoises with straws in their 
nostrils and all kinds of awful things. It is a threat to sea turtles 
and all kinds of marine wildlife.
  This would be an opportunity for us to show the public that we are 
aware there are cities, restaurant associations, and other groups that 
are banning straws or at least asking that they be made optional for 
customers so that they are used or not used, but let the customer make 
that decision. I think this would be a great thing for the House to do 
to show that we understand this environmental problem.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to accept 
the amendment. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his forethought 
and concern, which we also share.
  Mr. COHEN. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman and all the 
work he has done for many, many years in the House, and I appreciate 
the opportunity to serve with him.
  And I appreciate the ranking member for his help on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. KILDEE. 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 109, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $32,287,000) (increased by $32,287,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to highlight the 
lack of urgency by the Air Force to address an ongoing drinking water 
emergency across the country, including one in my home district. I am 
not talking about Flint; I am talking about Oscoda, Michigan, at the 
northern end of my district, the home of the former Wurtsmith Air Force 
Base.
  My constituents living there have had their drinking water 
contaminated by PFAS, perfluorinated chemicals, from the Air Force's 
use of firefighting foam. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to harmful 
health issues like cancer as well as thyroid, kidney, liver, heart, and 
reproductive problems. It is not just servicemembers but community 
members there.
  Unfortunately, the more we learn about this dangerous class of 
chemicals, the more we are finding it in drinking water across the 
country. In my district alone, thousands of people have cancer-causing 
chemicals in their drinking water due to the Air Force's use of this 
material.
  The Air Force does not seem to want to recognize this ongoing 
drinking water crisis. I have been pushing the Air Force to clean up 
the contamination in Oscoda and other communities. In fact, the entire 
Michigan delegation, Democrats and Republicans, wrote to appropriators 
asking for more funding for PFAS contamination.
  While Members are prevented from earmarking legislation to send 
resources directly to clean up contamination in Oscoda, it is an urgent 
problem that I wanted to call attention to. This community is near this 
former Air Force Base. It is facing very serious water contamination 
issues.
  You would think that the Air Force would request additional resources 
to clean up contamination, but, frustratingly, the Air Force has so far 
refused to request additional resources.
  The Appropriations Committee even asked the Air Force if they needed 
more money. Let me repeat that. The Appropriations Committee even asked 
the Air Force if they needed more money to address this problem, but 
the Air Force responded that they did not need any additional funds.
  I offer this amendment for the purpose of raising the issue. I know 
that it is not possible for us to designate these funds, so it is my 
intention to withdraw this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Florida is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic to the 
gentleman from Michigan's plight.
  PFAS chemicals have been found in groundwater and drinking water in 
Michigan due to their use in firefighting foam at former Wurtsmith Air 
Force Base. In fact, many closed installations across the country have 
a PFAS problem.
  For many decades, the Department of Defense used a class of chemicals 
called PFAS and PFOA in firefighting foam. However, we now know that 
PFAS is a toxic chemical that has negative health effects on the 
environment.
  I would like to work with the gentleman from Michigan on this issue 
to ensure that cleanup costs in his district are properly addressed in 
a timely manner, and I look forward to working with him on this issue.

[[Page H4973]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida, the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, for her commitment to work on this.
  This is a serious issue. I know Congress takes it seriously. I just 
would ask that the Air Force take it equally as seriously and request 
the funds necessary to clean up this really difficult problem.
  With that, I know that this amendment could present some problems in 
terms of the way this legislation moved forward, but the commitment 
that I have that this will be getting the attention it deserves from 
Congress, I think, is important.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mrs. Torres

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mrs. TORRES. 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 109, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Torres) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 20 to 
division C of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.
  This amendment is meant to address an issue we have in Ontario, 
California. However, I expect many of the Members of this body have 
experienced it in their own districts at some point.
  In the Rules Committee hearing last night, I referred to this 
amendment as giving the Secretary of Defense the ability to finish the 
job, and that is precisely what we should expect from our service 
branches when they close military bases in our districts during BRAC 
rounds.
  Ontario International Airport was the Ontario Air National Guard 
Station, which was established in 1949. This facility remained in 
operation for decades, assisting training and support for the Korean, 
Vietnam, and countless other wars and conflicts.
  In 1997, the facility was closed as part of the latest Base 
Realignment and Closure process. This meant our Armed Services moved 
out. But instead of the airport being able to use the newly vacant 
land, the old site has sat largely unchanged for 20 years due to the 
environmental hazards of demolition.
  When military bases are closed, it can be devastating to our local 
communities. At the very least, we should expect our service branches 
to leave our communities in as good or better shape than they found 
them.
  In Ontario, California, old Air Force facilities have been left 
standing at the Ontario International Airport. These abandoned 
buildings have been overtaken by nature and look like the remains of a 
lost civilization, with trees and animals roaming free at the remaining 
site. This valuable but currently unusable space is hindering the 
growth of the Ontario Airport, and communities around Ontario depend on 
the airport.
  My amendment would simply direct the Secretary to make available 
funds from the existing BRAC funding made available in this legislation 
to remove these old facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose this amendment 
because it does not require DOD to fund anything in particular.
  I would like to point out that the FY 2019 budget submission for 
Defense Appropriations included $442.9 million for demolition within 
the facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization account, 
double the FY 2018 level.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that, while there may be a 
particular interest behind the amendments, these do not direct funding 
to a particular activity. Our bill does not even fund these activities. 
For this reason, I will not oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I also do not oppose the amendment and find the gentlewoman's concept 
interesting.
  It is pretty clear that getting another BRAC round is going to be 
difficult. In response, many services are demolishing facilities that 
they no longer need using operation and maintenance funding.
  As we know, the BRAC account is primarily for environmental cleanup 
costs associated with closing bases. I would be interested to see if 
there are any environmental cleanup costs associated with the 
demolishing of buildings.
  For that reason, I will not oppose the amendment, and I look forward 
to seeing the results of the gentlewoman's idea.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  2315

  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill has funding for BRAC 
closures. Before we proceed with any new closures, let's finish the job 
on the old closures.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. KILDEE. 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 127, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``of which $2,037,547,400 shall be made available 
     for vocational rehabilitation and employment programs under 
     chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide just over $2 
billion to the vocational rehabilitation and employment account. This 
account invests in programs to help veterans successfully transition to 
civilian life.
  Our country has been at war for nearly two decades. While these 
conflicts are still ongoing, the number of veterans in this country is 
going to continue to grow. We have to invest in programs that support 
this generation of veterans as they seek to reintegrate into the 
civilian workforce.
  I just want to highlight a couple of important programs in this 
account.
  The Special Employer Incentives program connects veterans with 
opportunities where the VA reimburses the employer for up to half of a 
veteran's salary. This is a program that matches veterans with 
apprenticeships, with the expectation of being hired upon completion.
  I know from experience that our veterans bring unique perspective and 
skills to the workplace. I have hired, as I have said in previous 
conversations, multiple veterans working in my office, including a 
Wounded Warrior fellow and a HillVets fellow. We should ensure that we 
are supporting programs that connect veterans with employers.
  My amendment would also ensure funding for the VA to expand its 
Veterans Economic Communities Initiative, a program in which nonprofits 
and educational institutions build supportive networks for veterans. 
This is exactly the kind of long-term support that we should have had 
in place years

[[Page H4974]]

ago before launching into these conflicts.
  For many Americans, the American Dream is owning your own business 
and being your own boss. The vocational rehabilitation and employment 
account includes programs that help veterans do just that.
  The vocational rehabilitation and employment account also includes 
the VetSuccess on Campus program, which places vocational rehab 
counselors in partner schools.
  This amendment would give the VA the opportunity to expand these 
programs, reaching even more veterans.
  Unfortunately, as this process has moved forward, we have come to 
understand that the VA would intend to reduce the account for direct 
support for tuition and other supplies for veterans under their rights 
under the GI Bill.
  I will ask that this amendment be withdrawn, but I want to make sure 
to make the point that we ought to have a specific carveout for these 
vocational programs, for these transition programs. It is my hope that, 
as we move forward, we will be able to work with the VA to be able to 
identify a source that would not reduce the other benefits that are 
available to veterans seeking to better themselves.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. Chair, I withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                  Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Ruiz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. RUIZ. 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 131, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ruiz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 5895 
to provide $1 million in additional critical funding for the VA to 
conduct educational outreach to veterans about the Airborne Hazards and 
Open Burn Pit Registry.
  Our military uses burn pits to eliminate tons of waste, including 
chemicals, plastics, medical waste, human waste, computers--you name 
it--creating giant plumes of black smoke containing carcinogens, 
particulate matter, and other toxins.
  For years, the Department of Defense used burn pits in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, even while recognizing that exposure to burn pits may pose 
a health risk to our troops since about the late 1970s. Now veterans 
all across the country--young veterans in their twenties and thirties--
are developing rare and severe pulmonary diseases, cancers, and 
autoimmune diseases despite living healthy lifestyles, being healthy 
enough to be sent to war, and not having any other risk factors.
  This may bring up thoughts of Agent Orange that our Vietnam veterans 
faced. Burn pits exposure and the negative health outcomes are being 
described by our veterans as our modern-day Agent Orange, and we must 
learn from our past mistakes and act now.
  For more than a decade, veterans exposed to burn pits and their 
families have been given the runaround to get the care they have earned 
and deserve and to have their concerns taken seriously. My commonsense 
amendment would provide additional funding for the VA to conduct an 
educational outreach campaign on the burn pits registry to ensure more 
veterans register.
  The purpose of the registry is to collect data from veterans and 
servicemembers exposed to burn pits to highlight health patterns and 
create cohorts for research on the health effects of exposure.
  Mr. Chair, 3.7 million veterans are eligible to enroll in the VA burn 
pit registry; yet, after 4 years, only 144,000 veterans have enrolled. 
That is only a dismal less than 4 percent enrollment rate. It is clear 
that more outreach and education must be done to improve awareness 
about the registry.
  These additional funds will also improve health outcomes by raising 
awareness for our veterans and their physicians so they can be on the 
lookout for subtle changes in their health, including respiratory 
issues, early signs of cancer, or even autoimmune diseases.
  We have a responsibility to protect our men and women in uniform and 
veterans from the harmful effects of exposure to burn pits. If there is 
a high enough suspicion of a severe enough consequence, then we need to 
act now.
  The four things we need to do are:
  One, stop our troops' exposure to burn pits out on the battlefield;
  Two, outreach to doctors and veterans about the illnesses they may 
face so they can be vigilant and seek and get the appropriate care;
  Three, give veterans and servicemembers the treatment that they have 
earned and deserve; and
  Four, simultaneously do the research that is needed to understand the 
full scope of the dangers associated with exposure to burn pits.
  By investing in this educational campaign about the burn pits 
registry, my amendment will help tackle two of these fronts by 
improving outreach to veterans and providing the VA with a larger study 
sample size to help determine the full scope of the negative health 
effects linked to exposure.
  I urge my colleagues, on behalf of Jennifer Kepner, a 39-year-old 
mother of two who died of pancreatic cancer after being exposed to burn 
pits, with no other risk factors, in Balad Air Force Base, I urge my 
colleagues, on behalf of all the others who have died of cancer at a 
young age and left behind families and those who have acquired 
pulmonary fibrosis and permanent disabilities who are now requiring 
oxygen, unable to work, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment 
and to take concrete action to help those veterans who have been 
exposed to burn pits. The health of our veterans must be put above 
bureaucracy. We must help them get the answers and the healthcare 
services that they need and deserve now.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, 
though I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Florida is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California 
said, some veterans have reported respiratory issues and other health 
conditions that they believe are related to their exposure to burn 
pits.
  There are studies that provide information about the health effects 
related to exposure, but not enough to determine the long-term impacts. 
In response, the VA is researching, responsibly, the issue and has 
created the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry for veterans 
and servicemembers. However, many veterans, unfortunately, do not know 
about the burn pit registry.
  The gentleman from California's amendment would help bring attention 
to the registry to get more veterans registered so that, should an 
issue arise, they can be contacted quickly and receive the care that 
they have earned.
  There is no cost to the veteran to participate, and the veteran does 
not even need to be enrolled in the VA's healthcare system.
  The burn pit registry is a tool to help participants become more 
aware of their health and to identify health conditions possibly 
related to exposure to burn pits and other airborne hazards. But it 
only works if veterans know to sign up, and the gentleman's amendment 
will accomplish that.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member 
and all those who are in support of this specific amendment, who will 
put our veterans above this bureaucracy and give them the care that 
they need by expanding their access to this burn pit registry. I want 
to, from the bottom of my heart, say thank you.

  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, this registry is a tool that can 
be used to identify health concerns, guide discussions with a

[[Page H4975]]

healthcare provider, and document deployment-related exposures. We need 
to ensure that the VA is doing all it can to make veterans aware of 
this registry. It could literally, as the gentleman from California 
pointed out, be the difference between life and death.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Ohio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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 131, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, my amendment calls on the Department 
of Veterans Affairs to develop hospice care standards tailored to the 
unique needs of Vietnam-era combat veterans. As Vietnam veterans grow 
older, it is imperative that the VA has clear standards in place to 
care for this group and future veteran populations.
  By the VA's own estimate, there are approximately 6.5 million Vietnam 
veterans. These veterans have unique medical and psychological needs 
which must be identified and addressed, including lethal diseases 
associated with Agent Orange exposure and a high prevalence of post-
traumatic stress disorder, depression, and substance abuse.
  As part of the fiscal year 2018 MILCON-VA Appropriations, Congress 
directed the VA to submit a report identifying the unique challenges 
faced by Vietnam veterans receiving specialized palliative and hospice 
care and to develop best practices for hospice care specifically 
tailored to Vietnam veterans. Unfortunately, the VA responded with an 
inadequate two-page report that did not meet the reporting 
requirements.
  What the report did state is that there are over 4,000 community 
hospice care providers maintaining their own resources and training 
materials. This lack of cohesion indicates that the VA lacks consistent 
protocols and clear standards for veterans' hospice care.
  The report language for this appropriations bill addresses the VA's 
Vietnam Veterans End-of-Life Care report, calling it woefully 
inadequate, and requires the VA to redo it within 30 days of enactment. 
However, as it is clear that the VA currently lacks consistent hospice 
care protocols, I am instead calling on the VA to establish protocols 
that will meet the needs of Vietnam-era veterans.
  The VA must act now to implement clear and consistent standards of 
care for our veterans in need of hospice care. Developing these 
standards would also be beneficial for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria 
combat veterans in the future.
  We have a responsibility to ensure that our Nation's heroes are 
receiving the care and benefits they deserve and have earned, and that 
includes ensuring the VA has in place clear hospice care standards and 
services tailored to the unique needs of these veterans.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, 
although I will not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, we understand the gentleman's 
concerns and will keep them in mind for the conference. We have 
included report language on the topic in both the 2018 and 2019 
reports.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support 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 Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2330


                  Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Ruiz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Carbajal, 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 131, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ruiz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment with my 
good friend from Santa Barbara, California, Congressman Salud Carbajal, 
to address an issue impacting veterans that prevents them from 
accessing healthcare services they have earned and deserve.
  Right now, veterans calling their community-based outpatient clinics 
to make an appointment are automatically routed to central, busy call 
centers at major VA medical centers. This makes no sense.
  This means that veterans end up waiting sometimes more than an hour, 
especially in Carbajal's district, to be connected to a scheduler, and 
that is if they can get through at all.
  Additionally, some community-based outpatient clinics are not 
following up with veterans after the initial call at the busy hospital 
calling center, forcing veterans to find transportation to actually 
travel to the clinic just to make their appointment. As a result, many 
veterans get fed up and stop pursuing the care that they need out of 
frustration and lack of accessibility.
  Our Nation's veterans deserve timely access to healthcare services. 
They should be able to make their medical appointments or at least 
speak to somebody without having to wait an hour on the phone.
  This amendment directs the Secretary to ensure the VA phone system 
allows veterans to directly call their local community-based outpatient 
centers for appointments at those facilities, rather than having all 
calls be routed to the major busy VA medical centers.
  In short, it would reduce call wait times for veterans in Congressman 
Carbajal's district, in my district, in your districts, and districts 
throughout our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we understand the gentleman's 
concerns. We will keep them in mind for conference. We will be 
interested in learning more about this problem that he identifies.
  I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Providing veterans, Mr. Chairman, with prompt access to care is one 
goal that all Members of this body share. Call routing at the VA is a 
very important issue. We need to ensure that there is a system that 
meets the expectations of veterans and their loved ones.
  There are numerous VA call center numbers available to veterans who 
have questions about healthcare benefits and other issues, and we must 
ensure that calls being made to the VA are prioritized, tracked, and 
routed to the correct place so that issues are promptly and thoroughly 
addressed.
  We do also have, Mr. Chairman, an issue with there being a lot of 
different phone numbers at the VA, and that in and of itself is also 
confusing. So I, too,

[[Page H4976]]

look forward to working with both gentlemen from California. I 
appreciate their efforts on this issue.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, wonderful. This is a very easy, commonsense 
fix to a problem that our veterans face. They wait too long, they get 
fed up, they are not getting the followup that they need, and all this 
does is allows them to call the actual place where they need their 
appointments to schedule an appointment with them.
  So I would really like to thank Chairman Carter and Ranking Member 
Wasserman Schultz for not opposing this amendment and for their support 
and for their support of veterans in the underlying bill.
  I would also like to recognize and thank Congressman Carbajal and his 
staff for their work, and his efforts to improve the lives of veterans 
in his district, in my district, and all of our districts. I also want 
to thank my staff for their work on this amendment?
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to help ensure veterans have 
easy access to healthcare benefits that they have earned and deserve, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. McSally

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Ms. McSALLY. 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 131, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $28,872,000) (increased by $28,872,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Ms. McSally) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 5895, and urge adoption of my amendment to division C 
of the bill, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 2019. This amendment would increase critically 
needed funding for suicide prevention and outreach programs as part of 
a broader mental health service for our veterans.
  Veterans make up less than 9 percent of the U.S. population, yet 
veteran suicides account for 18 percent of all suicides in America. 
After adjusting for differences in age and sex, that puts the risk of 
suicide at 22 percent higher among veterans than for civilian adults, 
and the suicide rates for female veterans has risen more than 85 
percent since 2001.
  This tragic trend is even more egregious in my home State of Arizona. 
According to a recent study by Arizona State University Center for 
Violence Prevention and Community Safety, Arizona veterans are nearly 
four times more likely to take their own lives than nonveterans.
  This study shows that veterans in Arizona committed suicide at a rate 
of 55 per 100,000, compared to a rate of 14 per 100,000 for nonveterans 
in Arizona. In my home State, that means veterans are 391 percent more 
likely to commit suicide than nonveterans--391 percent.
  Despite these stark and startling statistics, studies and data across 
the board consistently show that mental health services, and, 
specifically, suicide prevention for veteran populations, continue to 
go unmet. It is not enough to simply talk about studies and statistics 
and hope for the best. Lip service will not save lives.
  For over 500,000 veterans that call Arizona home, this can be a life 
or death issue. Today and every day, on average, 20 veterans took their 
own lives--20 of my fellow warriors, 20 heroes, 20 loved ones, sons, 
daughters, mothers, fathers, 20 vets who often survived combating the 
enemy in conflict, only to come home and take their own lives.
  Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable. When they raised their right hand 
and took an oath that they were willing to defend our freedoms with 
their lives, we have a covenant that we got their back, and we are 
going to give them everything that they need.
  I urge my colleagues, please, to support my amendment and ensure 
funding for suicide prevention programs is increased and we save their 
lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting Chair. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's concerns about 
providing adequate funding to address veterans' mental health needs is 
shared by every member of our committee. We are pleased that the bill 
provides $8.6 million for mental health programs, including $196 
million for suicide prevention outreach.
  We will certainly try to maintain these substantial levels in 
conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 
gentlewoman is correct, roughly 20 veterans take their own lives every 
day in the United States, and it is a very serious problem that we need 
to address.
  As the chairman mentioned, the bill provides $8.6 million for mental 
health programs, and that is actually $6 million above the budget 
request. We are very proud of the work that the committee has done.
  In addition, the $196 million for suicide prevention outreach fully 
funds the veterans' crisis line, additionally, at $90 million. The bill 
repeats language first included in the FY17 act requiring the veterans 
crisis line to provide to individuals who contact them immediate 
hotline assistance from a trained professional and to adhere to all 
requirements of the American Association of Suicidology.
  The potential for suicide and making sure that we take care of our 
veterans who are facing crisis is absolutely critical. I do not oppose 
the amendment, but I do think it is important to stress that the 
committee did work to significantly prioritize this issue, and we 
appreciate the gentlewoman's attention to it.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their commitment to our vets and to preventing suicide of 
these warriors, and I urge our colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. WELCH. 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 132, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 131, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the VA medical 
services account by $5 million for the purpose of strengthening the 
Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.
  Burn pits, as you know, Mr. Chairman, were commonly used on U.S. 
military sites during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to burn all types 
of waste--from chemicals, paint, medical waste, and human waste to 
munitions, petroleum, plastics, and rubber. But, as you know, many 
members of the military who were exposed to burn pits are beginning to 
experience negative health effects from the toxic smoke that they 
inhaled. And that is why I

[[Page H4977]]

am offering this amendment, to increase funding to address and assist 
those suffering more aggressively and quickly.
  On May 7, Mr. Chairman, I met with a group of Vermont National Guard 
members led by Pat Cram, who have been impacted by burn pit exposure. 
Pat is the wife of Sergeant Major Mike Cram of the Vermont National 
Guard who died this past December from prostate cancer that is believed 
to be a direct result of his exposure to burn pits in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Sergeant Major Cram first deployed to Iraq in 2004 with a group of 
MPs from the 42nd Infantry Division of the Vermont National Guard. They 
joined up with the 278th Tennessee National Guard Calvary in Iraq. All 
21 soldiers from this group that deployed together for 18 months 
returned home to their families safely.
  But since their safe return, this same group has lost two members 
from prostate cancer and another has been treated for it, and they 
believe their exposure to burn pit toxins is the reason.
  This group is still close, they stay in touch, their families support 
each other. I was so inspired to hear about how they have stuck 
together throughout the years. But those members that have not had the 
direct health issues that some of their comrades have are now wondering 
whether they, too, will get sick.
  This funding would provide resources to the VA to make necessary 
improvements to the registry and prepare for the long-term care for 
those affected veterans. It would also allow, Mr. Chairman, the VA to 
hire analysts and epidemiologists who can connect the registry entries 
to health outcomes, make necessary technological updates to the 
registry, and increase the funding for essential clinical research.
  The cost of a war must always include the cost of caring for the 
warrior, and this critical funding helps to do just that.
  I want to thank Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz 
for their attention to this issue and willingness to help. I urge 
support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting Chair. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we understand the gentleman's 
concerns, and we will keep in mind this concern during our conference. 
I have heard from veterans in my district about the concerns, and, in 
fact, sat down with some last weekend, and this was one of their number 
one concerns.
  So this has a health impact. These burn pits are something we really 
need to get into, and we will have this in mind in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2345


                  Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Barr

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in part B of House Report 115-712.
  Mr. BARR. 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 131, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 132, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to increase 
funding for the VA adaptive sports equine-assisted therapy program by 
$5 million.
  This grant program provides much-needed resources for evidence-based 
equine-assisted therapy that helps treat veterans suffering from unseen 
psychological wounds such as post-traumatic stress disorder, military 
sexual trauma, and traumatic brain injury. Increased funding for 
equine-assisted therapy will greatly improve mental health treatment 
for our veterans.
  As the chairman of the Congressional Horse Caucus, the representative 
for the horse capital of the world, and as someone who cares deeply for 
our veterans, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $1 million over 
the President's budget request for the Adaptive Sports Grant, ASG, 
program for equine-assisted therapy, as our 2018 bill did also.
  We understand the gentleman's concern in further increasing this 
funding and will keep it in mind during conference.
  In my congressional district, we also have equine therapy, and I am 
very familiar with it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Adaptive sports promotes the rehabilitation of disabled military 
service veterans. This is a vital program that allows veterans with 
disabilities to participate in physical activity, including those with 
mental health issues, within their home communities, as well as more 
advanced paralympic and adaptive sports programs at the regional and 
national levels.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee is a strong supporter of this program. In 
fact, the bill provides $17.8 million for the National Veterans Sports 
Program. I appreciate the gentleman addressing this issue today, and I 
support this amendment.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Barr) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, 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.

                          ____________________