Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 102 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 102 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4738-H4750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 436 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. 2740.
Will the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood) kindly resume the
chair.

{time} 1950

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. 2740) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes,
with Ms. Underwood (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,
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 61, printed in part A of
House Report 116-111, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox) had been postponed.

Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Burgess

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of Division E (before the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. __. Each amount made available by this Division is
hereby reduced by 5 percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would reduce appropriations in the Energy and Water
Development division by 5 percent. The programs in this division have
wide bipartisan support. This includes Federal spending on water
infrastructure, basic science research, storm and flood damage
reduction activities, and more.
These critical programs are necessary for the safety and health of
our citizens and the continued growth of the economy. However, this
legislation's top-line spending is out of sync with the Federal
Government's ongoing fiscal predicament.
Congress must balance these initiatives with fiscal realism. Our
national debt is over $22 trillion and climbing, and the majority's
legislation is only adding to this debt.
Let's work to improve this legislation in a bipartisan, bicameral
effort to ensure that we fund the programs that we need today but not
have our children pay for them tomorrow.
Madam Chair, I urge support of this amendment and a return to fiscal
sanity, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment and
point out that our country really can't neglect vital investments for
the safety and welfare of the American people.
Our bill funds water resource projects that are critical, including
in Texas; supports science and energy technology research activities
necessary to build the future and our future competitiveness; and
responsibly funds a credible nuclear deterrent and important
nonproliferation efforts.
This amendment will harm all of these. It will harm job creation and
reduce protections against flooding and natural disasters that all
parts of our country have been facing.
One can be penny-wise and pound-foolish, and not making these
investments will make the costs in the future even greater.
This amendment will also result in fewer investments in water
resource infrastructure and energy research and development programs,
all of which

[[Page H4739]]

create good jobs, have substantial returns on investment, and position
our Nation for future needs.
We must continue investing in these areas to ensure our national
security on many levels and to remain the global leader in energy and
in science.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, it is actually a pretty easy equation. The
Federal Government, under the budget caps agreement of 2011, is
required to perform under budget caps.
For whatever reason, we have chosen to ignore that difficult fact of
life while these appropriations bills were written. Top-line numbers
were--well, back in math class in the eighth grade, we used to talk
about imaginary numbers and irregular numbers. These numbers are
certainly imaginary and irregular because they are not based on
reality.
All I am asking for is that we make a good faith effort to save 5
cents out of every dollar that we spend in this appropriations bill. I
don't think that is too much to ask. I don't think any one of us
believes that every dollar that is spent by the Federal Government in
the agencies is well spent and there are not savings to be had.
That is all this amendment is asking for: a limitation, across-the-
board cut, 5 percent. Let's get it passed. Then let's get back to the
table and decide, really, what the priorities are.
Because, you know what, Madam Chair, at some point, if we proceed
down this path, the sequester is going to kick in, and it will not be
pretty, and it will not be an easy path at that point. It will actually
be dictated to us, not something where we have negotiation room.
Madam Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam 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.

Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Burgess

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I call up amendment No. 64 to division E of
H.R. 2740.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 620, strike lines 1 through 8.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, this amendment would strike section 108 of
this bill that prohibits any funding used for border security
infrastructure.
Let me say that again because I can't believe it myself.
This would strike section 108 of the bill that prohibits any funding
being used for border security infrastructure.
There is a very clear humanitarian and security crisis on our
southern border. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement are strained by the enormous number of border
crossings each and every day. In the month of May, over 144,000
individuals crossed our border without permission. Over 96,000 are
unaccompanied children or family units.
But, instead of providing desperately needed aid to take care of
these children and families, this bill only includes a provision to
prohibit funding to secure our border. It is appalling that we have not
considered supplemental funding to deal with this crisis.
As long as the doors remain wide open, irregular migration will
continue, and the American taxpayer will have to foot the bill to care
for another country's children.
We can no longer do nothing. I urge support of this amendment to
allow security along our southern border, and I reserve the balance of
my time
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment, which really doesn't belong in this bill.
Section 108 prevents the President from siphoning off funds from
critical Army Corps projects to build a border wall. These include
important flood control projects to protect and restore communities
from natural disasters and navigation projects to keep our ports moving
commerce.
Our bill protects more than $20 billion in disaster funding
appropriated since February of last year to rebuild damaged Corps
projects and speed up flood control projects all over the country,
including in my colleague's home State of Texas, which has been so hard
hit.

{time} 2000

It also protects funding for Corps projects that are currently
underway, or soon will be, including projects in every district across
America. Without this language, the President can raid funding from any
Corps water infrastructure project he wants and divert those funds to a
border wall.
Earlier this year, when it became public that the President was
considering using the Corps' Civil Works fund to pay for a border wall,
the backlash was swift and strong, with bipartisan opposition.
In fact, a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
including those from Texas, tweeted that they had secured the
commitment of the White House that the President would not raid
disaster funding for their Harvey relief projects. If approved, this
amendment would strike the language in the bill that protects those
projects.
So I remind my colleagues that a ``yes'' vote on this amendment is a
vote signaling that they are fine with the President raiding Corps
water infrastructure projects in their district to build a border wall.
The President, on hundreds of occasions, may I remind you, promised
that Mexico would pay for any border security necessary to restore
order at our shared border. We cannot allow the President to dip into
accounts with infrastructure funds to assist ravaged communities across
our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
And I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano), my esteemed colleague, chair of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Water Subcommittee.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
His amendment would strike from the underlying bill a provision in
Section 108 that blocks the Trump administration from transferring
existing funds from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, known as the
Corps, for the construction of a wall or barrier along the U.S./Mexico
border.
I have been a very vocal opponent of this President's never-ending
political stunt to construct a wall along our southern border with
Mexico.
Through emergency supplemental bills, Congress provided billions of
dollars to help American families rebuild their lives after recent
storms and natural disasters, as well as prepare our country for future
disasters. This emergency money in the Corps budget is not a slush fund
to be raided by the President for his political purposes.
Americans have seen their lives upended, their homes and towns
destroyed, and havoc wreaked upon their local economies. Our government
should not abandon them in their hour of need.
I support Section 108 of the Energy and Water Appropriations title of
this bill that prohibits the President from transferring any funds
appropriated in this or earlier bills from being used for the
construction of this wall.
I was also pleased to join with the chairs of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. DeFazio, the Committee on
Appropriations, Mrs. Lowey, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water,
Ms. Kaptur, in

[[Page H4740]]

challenging, in a letter, the underlying legal authority for the
President to re-allocate existing appropriated funds of the Corps'
Civil Works program for the construction of a physical barrier along
the southern border.
Madam Chair, I insert a copy of the letter in the Congressional
Record.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 16, 2019.
Hon. Donald J. Trump,
The President, The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: You have publicly indicated several
times that you may seek to declare a national emergency in
order to fund the construction of a physical barrier along
the southern border of the United States. Also, a number of
news reports suggest you are considering utilizing a
previously unused statutory authority to reallocate existing
funds of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for this
construction.
We believe that any suggestion that you could use this
statutory authority for this purpose is misinformed. Simply
put, this authority does not authorize you to reallocate
existing Corps funds--including, but not limited to,
approximately $14 billion in disaster funds for communities
impacted by the 2017 and 2018 hurricanes or other natural
disasters--for the construction of the physical barrier. In
addition, we oppose the reallocation of existing Corps funds
from communities that are just starting to rebuild from the
devastation they faced, and for which Congress provided
emergency funds to help the lives and livelihoods of our
citizens.
Section 923(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2293(a)) states that:
In the event of a declaration of war or a declaration by
the President of a national emergency in accordance with the
National Emergencies Act (90 Stat. 1255; 50 U.S.C. 1601) that
requires or may require use of the Armed Forces, the
Secretary, without regard to any other provision of law, may
(1) terminate or defer the construction, operation,
maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil
works project that he deems not essential to the national
defense, and (2) apply the resources of the Department of the
Army's civil works program, including funds, personnel, and
equipment, to construct or assist in the construction,
operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works,
military construction, and civil defense projects that are
essential to the national defense.
As you know, this authority has never been used by the
Corps since its enactment in 1986. Therefore, there is no
historical precedent on its use by any Presidential
administration. However, we believe that a plain reading of
this statutory provision does not provide legal authority to
reallocate existing appropriated funds of the Corps' civil
works program for the construction of the physical barrier
along the southern border you have called for.
First, section 923 unequivocally states that actions funded
by this provision ``require or may require use of the Armed
Forces'' (emphasis added). In our opinion, there is nothing
uniquely related to the planning, design, or construction of
the physical barrier that would suggest the Armed Forces' (in
this case, the Corps) involvement in these activities is
required. We understand that the Corps has, on previous
occasions and through its Support for Others authority,
participated in prior design and construction activities
related to existing barriers along with the southern border.
But, it is also our understanding that these activities were,
at best, supportive roles to other Federal agencies,
including the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and that
none of these activities were paid for using the Corps' civil
works funds.
The legislative history of section 923 further highlights
Congress' intent that there be a military nexus as a
prerequisite to use of this authority. In contemporaneous
hearings before the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, the then-Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) testified on the limited scope of this
authority--noting that this authority ``would be available
only in two limited situations: in time of war declared by
Congress, or in time of national emergency, military in
nature, declared by the President in accordance with the
National Emergences Act'' (emphasis added).
It is our belief that construction of a physical barrier
along the southern border fails to meet either of these
limited situations. On the former, there is no active
declaration of war related to the border crossing. On the
latter, there is no justification that construction of the
physical barrier is military in nature. The term ``military
in nature,'' again, implies that the situation requires the
unique presence or involvement of the Department of Defense
in its military (Armed Forces) capacity. While the Corps is a
component of the Department of Defense, its civil works
mission is focused on water resources development activities
and emergency response to natural disasters. It is in that
capacity that the Corps provides domestic construction-
related assistance through its authorized civil works
activities, or through its Support for Others authority. Yet,
these authorities are solely distinct from the Corps' role in
supporting the combat and installation readiness needs of the
Department of Defense. In our view, because construction of a
physical barrier does not necessitate the actions of the
Department of Defense in its military capacity, the use of
the Corps for construction of the barrier would not fall
within the limited scope of section 923.
Second, section 923 also requires that any project, for
which construction, operation, maintenance, and repair work
is funded under this authority, be specifically authorized by
Congress. As noted in the Congressional Record during Senate
consideration of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
``[this] section does not provide authority to construct any
project not authorized by law.'' Yet, the proposed physical
barrier that you are contemplating is not specifically
authorized by Congress--not as a civil works project, not as
a military construction project, and not as a civil defense
project. Therefore, your potential use of this authority
for the proposed physical barrier would fail a second test
of applicability.
Even if you were to ignore the plain text of section 923,
and continue to pursue this authority to reallocate existing
funds from the Corps, we want to be very clear who would be
impacted by your decision.
It is our understanding that the administration has
identified potentially $14 billion in construction funds from
the 2018 Supplemental Appropriations related to Hurricanes
Harvey, Irma, and Maria, as well as other disasters (Pub. L.
115-123) and an additional $2.9 billion in supplemental
appropriations related to Superstorm Sandy that remain
unobligated. These funds were specifically appropriated by
Congress to help communities in impacted states and
territories recover from devastating natural disasters.
In July 2018, the Corps released its list of specific
projects for which the 2018 Supplemental funds are planned to
be utilized. This list includes, approximately: $4.5 billion
for the State of Texas; $2.4 billion for the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico; $2.4 billion for the State of California; $1.2
billion for the State of Louisiana; and $700 million for the
State of Florida.
Each of the states and territories that received an
allocation of emergency supplemental funds by Congress were
uniquely impacted by natural disasters.
For example, in the City of Houston, Texas, officials
believe that 82 people were killed, 13,000 people were
rescued, and more than 42,000 people were forced into
shelters by Hurricane Harvey (in addition to the 6 million
Texans who were otherwise impacted by the storm). Similarly,
in 2017, Puerto Rico faced Hurricanes Irma and Maria, with
Maria now designated as the third deadliest hurricane in U.S.
history, killing thousands of citizens, and disabling the
entire power grid of the Commonwealth for months. While these
are just two examples of the devastating impacts of recent
natural disasters, they are indicative of why Congress
decided to provide robust emergency funding to these and
similarly impacted communities that are only now starring to
rebuild.
In our view, it would be the height of irresponsibility to
take away vital reconstruction funds from communities
impacted by recent natural disasters, leaving these
communities at continued vulnerability to future disasters,
and future loss of life.
Again, we believe that section 923 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 does not provide you with legal
authority to reallocate existing Corps funds to the
construction of a physical barrier along the southern border.
In addition, we oppose the transfer of Corps funds away from
communities that have already suffered enough from the
impacts of recent natural disasters, and strongly urge you
not to utilize these allocated recovery dollars for any
purpose related to the construction of the physical barrier.
Sincerely,
Peter A. DeFazio,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Grace F. Napolitano,
Member of Congress.
Nita M. Lowey,
Chairwoman, Committee on Appropriations.
Marcy Kaptur,
Chairwoman-designate, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, the construction of the President's
wall is the wrong way to address our Nation's immigration challenges.
This amendment would allow the President to abandon families in
California, Texas, Puerto Rico, Florida, the Midwest, and elsewhere,
that were impacted by recent natural disasters, in their hour of need.
I thank Chairwoman Kaptur for including much-needed funding in this
bill for the Army Corps of Engineers to do their job, and for including
Section 108 that protects the Army Corps from the political stunt of
building a border wall.
Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4741]]

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, may I ask as to the time remaining on my
side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, the truth is the President of the United States
shouldn't be forced to have to make the tough decisions of figuring out
how to secure our border without support from this institution, but
that is precisely what is happening. The President of the United States
is having to look at a crisis on our border that our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle just simply straight up refuse to acknowledge
exists.
When I was down at the border in McAllen in January, I was told of
about 200,000 people that would be apprehended; maybe 200,000 that
would not be apprehended. And I was told 90 percent of that was going
to come through McAllen, as opposed to Brownsville. Why? Because there
is fencing in Brownsville.
I would ask my colleagues whether they have ever been to the border,
in the cane, along the river, talking to Border Patrol when they are
there at 11:00 at night, and they have radios that don't work; cell
signals that don't work. They can't see the river because the cane is
too thick. They have no roads that are lateral that run along the
river, so they can move up and down the river to protect our border.
They are down there by themselves, and the cartels have operational
control of the river.
The Reynoso faction of the Gulf Cartel, they own it. They are making
hundreds of millions of dollars moving people through McAllen right
now. And right now, little girls are going to be abused on the journey
because we bury our heads in the sand.
The President is trying to secure the border, and the Democrats, in
another cynical attempt to stop security, are putting provisions and
poison pills in this legislation to prevent the kind of security that
is needed for our border. I, for the life of me, don't understand it.
I appreciate my colleague from Texas standing up and making this
point that we should be preserving the ability of the President to be
able to do his job in the absence of a Congress willing to do its job.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would just like to remind the gentleman--I
think he is new to this body--that the President said he was going to
get Mexico to pay for everything. He said that 1,000 times. Didn't
happen.
He is not going to raid our accounts.
The gentleman has communities in his State. Unfortunately, he held up
the money for a long time about a week and a half ago; and so now he
comes to the floor and talks this way.
He is not going to raid the Corps budget under my watch; that is for
sure. Communities across this country need this money.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is a pretty simple equation. A ``no'' vote on this amendment is,
in fact, a vote for open borders. As Mr. Roy correctly pointed out,
there are far too many stretches of our border in Texas with Mexico,
where there is no barrier at all. Carrizo cane and mesquite trees will
not stop people who have it in their hearts to come across.
The operational control has been ceded to criminal gangs and cartels
on the Mexican side of the border. This needs to stop.
This amendment simply removes a cynical obstruction to the President
being able to do his job when the Congress will not do our job.
I urge 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 Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam 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.

Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 436, I offer
amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 3 consisting of amendment Nos. 65, 71, 73, 83,
88, 94, 105, 106, and 108 printed in part B of House Report 116-111,
offered by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio:

amendment no. 65 offered by ms. wasserman schultz of florida

At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to issue a permit under section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act for the discharge of dredged or
fill material from a project located within Water
Conservation Areas 3A and 3B in the State of Florida.

amendment no. 71 offered by mr. langevin of rhode island

Page 640, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

amendment no. 73 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona

Page 631, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,400,000)''.
Page 637, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

amendment no. 83 offered by ms. castor of florida

At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize the proposed rule entitled ``Energy
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
General Service Lamps'' published by the Department of Energy
in the Federal Register on February 11, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg.
3120).

amendment no. 88 offered by mr. bera of california

Page 621, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000) (decreased by $2,000,000)''.

amendment no. 94 offered by mr. brendan f. boyle of pennsylvania

At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to reject any application for a grant available under
funds appropriated by this Act because of the use of the term
``global warming'' or the term ``climate change'' in the
application.

amendment no. 105 offered by ms. omar of minnesota

At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Energy to make a guarantee under
section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
16513) for a project that does not avoid, reduce, or
sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases.

amendment no. 106 offered by mrs. lee of nevada

Page 635, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 637, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

amendment no. 108 offered by mr. garcia of illinois

Page 631, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 629, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, this en bloc includes amendments from
Representatives Wasserman Schultz, Langevin, Grijalva, Castor, Bera,
Boyle, Omar, Lee of Nevada, and Garcia of Illinois. This includes a
number of ideas that were not included in the original bill, and that
we support.
Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chair of the Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise to support the en bloc
amendment, which includes my amendment to protect Water Conservation
Areas in the Everglades from oil wells.
It is important to point out that as of last year, the Federal
Government and the State of Florida had spent more than $3.7 billion to
restore the Florida Everglades, the river grass. I am here to say, by
offering this amendment, I want to ensure that we not roll back that
progress.
My amendment would ensure that avaricious oil companies who care for

[[Page H4742]]

nothing but profit, cannot turn our famed river of grass into an
industrial oil field.
An investment company has applied to drill an oil well just west of
the city of Miramar in Broward County, my home county, much of which I
represent.
Drilling an oil well in the middle of a Water Conservation Area that
is 20,000 acres wide, between two canals, when you have 8 million
people who rely, for their drinking water, on the aquifer beneath the
Florida Everglades, is the definition of insanity.
My amendment would ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers could not
issue this heinous permit when it is applied for.
We have, under the Federal and State Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, water managers who want to connect two conservation
areas that are part of southern Florida's hydrological system. A
lawsuit that is pending in Federal court argues that drilling violates
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and I agree, and this
amendment would ensure that the Army Corps must deny the permit.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
would like to address what the gentlewoman just said in just a minute.
While I may have been able to support some of the amendments that
have been considered individually--and I noticed that as we listed the
Members that have offered amendments they were all Democratic
amendments; none of them were Republican amendments--the majority's
decision to package them together like this means I must oppose an en
bloc amendment.
I have concerns with multiple pieces of this en bloc amendment, but I
would like to focus on two of them; one that was just spoken about by
the gentlewoman from Florida.
First, this amendment includes language that would prohibit the Army
Corps of Engineers from issuing a section 404 permit for any project in
a specific geographical location.
Legislatively deciding individual permit outcomes is something the
Energy and Water Subcommittee, under both Republican and Democrat
leadership, have previously avoided. That restraint was not because we
were never asked to legislate the outcome of a permit. We were asked
many, many times.
Rather, it was in recognition that Congress has established a process
by which the technical experts within the Federal agencies would
evaluate projects to determine whether environmental impacts could be
avoided or minimized such that the project could move forward.
Injecting politics into the process by inserting language into an
appropriation bill sets the wrong precedent. It suggests that any
future permit decision could be decided by the whim of a majority of
Congress.
The second issue I would like to discuss is the language prohibiting
the Department of Energy from finalizing the rule relating to the
efficiency standards of light bulbs.
I know there are some parties who have characterized the proposed
rule as a roll back of efficiency standards. What it really does,
though, is ensure the Department is following the law.
The previous rule, a rule promulgated at the very last minute of the
Obama administration, revised certain definitions contrary to statutory
language. That rule was challenged legally, and the settlement
acknowledged the mistake.
The current proposed rule reduces the regulatory uncertainty by
making clear that several types of light bulbs will continue to be
sold. It also shows DOE's commitment to following the law, a novel
concept. We should all support following the laws that Congress passes.
For these reasons, I must oppose this en bloc amendment, and I urge
my colleagues to do the same.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Garcia).
Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Madam Chair, my amendment shifts $5 million
in funding for fossil fuel research and development to Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research.
Increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, like
wind and solar, are the most cost-effective ways of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. These funds can also fund research in more fuel-
efficient passenger vehicles for transit options.
The Trump administration's 2020 budget proposed cutting over $2
billion from energy efficiency programs, and authorized an additional
$116 million to fund new oil, gas, and coal projects.

{time} 2015

As climate change continues to threaten our future economic
prosperity and the lives of billions worldwide, we should be focusing
our efforts on clean, renewable energy.
Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues on the Rules Committee for making
this important amendment in order. I urge all of my colleagues to
support my amendment to further promote energy efficiency and renewable
energy research and development.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, tribal energy resources are vast, largely
untapped, and critical in our fight to move towards a secure and
sustainable energy future. Despite this potential, many tribal homes
lack access to electricity and affordable heating sources.
Our amendment increases the Office of Indian Energy Policy and
Programs by $2 million and reduces Fossil Energy Research and
Development by $2.4 million. This increase should be allocated
specifically for renewable energy.
This amendment ensures that we place a higher priority on energy
needs and capabilities within tribal lands and communities, by slightly
reducing a growing and outdated fossil fuel account.
The funding will provide financial and technical assistance to enable
tribes to evaluate and develop their renewable energy resources and to
reduce their energy costs through efficiency and weatherization.
Funds may be used to offer education and training opportunities
designed to foster clean energy technology adoption, promote green jobs
and growth, and strengthen overall native communities' self-
determination.
Through these projects, tribes can continue to build the capacity to
manage their energy needs. Many tribes' energy costs are higher than
the national average, making installation of renewable energy a
permanent improvement in their finances and lives.
Investing in renewable energy technologies provides many benefits for
tribes:
It creates economic stability by protecting these communities from
fluctuations of conventional energy sources and by providing steady
revenue into the future.
It creates employment in manufacturing, operations, and maintenance.
Installing wind turbines, solar heaters, and solar panels in the
communities provide opportunities for hands-on education and training.
Onsite renewable power can contribute to tribal energy self-
sufficiency by providing electricity in rural areas underserved by the
existing power grid and save tribes revenues.
Developing local renewable energy resources can improve local air
quality and health conditions, as well as improve the communities'
response to climate change impacts and extreme weather disruptions.
This amendment will help Indian Country by moving a small amount of
funding away from old energy sources that are leaving us reliant on
out-date and harmful energy sources.
Despite the need to transition to a clean energy future, the Fossil
Energy Research and Development account has increased $72 million since
2017.
Currently there are 573 recognized tribes, yet the Office Indian
Energy is appropriated at only $25 million.
The longer we postpone an orderly transition away from fossil fuels
the more vulnerable we become as a society--what better way to move
forward than to present our Native nations with the opportunity to be
leaders of our energy future.
This amendment will make a difference in the quality of life of
American Indians and Alaska Natives by bringing renewable energy and
energy efficiency options to their sovereign nations.
I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for their work
on this bill. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment,
and I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H4743]]

Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from
Ohio will be postponed.

Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 436, I offer
amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 4 consisting of amendment Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69,
70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 95, 96,
98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, and 113 printed in
part A of House Report 116-111, offered by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio:

amendment no. 66 offered by mr. fleischmann of tennessee

Page 639, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $123,000,000) (reduced by $123,000,000)''.

amendment no. 67 offered by ms. norton of the district of columbia

Page 610, line 23, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

amendment no. 68 offered by mr. wilson of south carolina

Page 641, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $6,500,000)''.
Page 641, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,500,000)''.

amendment no. 69 offered by ms. velazquez of new york

Page 611, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $45,000,000) (increased by $45,000,000)''.

amendment no. 70 offered by mr. graves of missouri

Page 610, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
Page 615, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

amendment no. 72 offered by mr. walberg of michigan

Page 630, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 637, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

amendment no. 74 offered by mr. richmond of louisiana

Page 613, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
Page 615, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

amendment no. 75 offered by mr. richmond of louisiana

Page 613, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $75,000,000) (reduced by $75,000,000)''.

amendment no. 76 offered by mr. richmond of louisiana

Page 611, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 615, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

amendment no. 77 offered by mr. lipinski of illinois

Page 635, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,000,000) (increased by $15,000,000)''.

amendment no. 78 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia

Page 631, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 637, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

amendment no. 79 offered by mr. loebsack of iowa

Page 629, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

amendment no. 81 offered by mr. welch of vermont

Page 611, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $40,000,000) (reduced by $40,000,000)''.

amendment no. 82 offered by ms. kuster of new hampshire

Page 637, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Page 659, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

amendment no. 84 offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania

Page 629, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 637, line 24, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Foster of Illinois

Page 631, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1)''.
Page 631, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1)''.

Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Hudson of North Carolina

Page 631, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,317,808,000)''.
Page 631, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,317,808,000)''.

Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Bera of California

Page 613, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $ 3,000,000)''.
Page 615, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $ 3,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 92 Offered by Mr. Ruiz of California

Page 621, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by $2,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 93 Offered by Mr. Rouzer of North Carolina

Page 613, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 616, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 95 Offered by Mr. Estes of Kansas

Page 621, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 621, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 96 Offered by Miss Rice of New York

Page 629, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $16,308,000)''.
Page 629, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $16,308,000)''.

Amendment No. 98 Offered by Ms. Plaskett of Virgin Islands

Page 611, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $100,000,000) (increased by $100,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. Cloud of Texas

Page 631, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 637, line 24, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. Cloud of Texas

Page 631, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 637, line 24, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 101 Offered by Ms. Blunt Rochester of Delaware

Page 610, line 23, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 102 Offered by Mr. Lamb of Pennsylvania

Page 631, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 104 Offered by Mr. O'Halleran of Arizona

Page 637, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 629, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 107 Offered by Mr. Rouda of California

Page 611, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 109 Offered by Mr. Levin of California

Page 649, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000) (increased by $500,000)''.

Amendment No. 110 Offered by Mrs. Craig of Minnesota

Page 610, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 613, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 615, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.

Amendment No. 111 Offered by Mrs. Craig of Minnesota

Page 611, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $7,500,000)(increased by $7,500,000)''.

Amendment No. 112 Offered by Mr. McAdams of Utah

Page 620, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 621, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
Page 625, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 113 Offered by Mr. Levin of Michigan

Page 611, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $30,000,000)(increased by $30,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, this amendment includes a number of bipartisan and
noncontroversial ideas that were not included in the original bill.
Madam Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment. I thank
Chairwoman Lowey and Chairwoman Kaptur for working with our side to
include many provisions important to our Members. I appreciate the
decision to offer this bipartisan en bloc amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Loebsack), a highly capable member of the committee.

[[Page H4744]]

Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
appreciate that very much.
My amendment will ensure level funding for distributed wind
technologies and research within the Department of Energy's wind energy
program.
Distributed wind is the use of typically smaller wind turbines owned
primarily by rural and local entities, such as homes, farms,
businesses, and public facilities, to offset all or a portion of onsite
energy consumption. This type of energy production strengthens American
communities by helping them become more energy independent while
lowering costs for consumers.
Distributed wind also strengthens domestic manufacturing, as 90
percent of all small wind turbines sold in the U.S. last year were made
in America.
The funding provided over the past few fiscal years has helped
unleash distributed wind power's vast potential, but continued
investment is needed to support the critical research and development
that will reduce costs and maximize the benefits of distributed wind
power throughout the United States.
Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I think Mr. Lamb is going to have a statement here
coming up, and I thank Chairman Lamb in advance for his remarks. He has
a jam-up amendment.
Nuclear energy has been one of my top priorities during my time on
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. America has a long
history of leadership in nuclear science. It is critical that we
maintain that leadership, but our existing fleet of reactors is aging.
Many of our nuclear plants are nearing the end of their 40-year
licenses and must reapply with the NRC to continue operation. While
license renewals are important to ensure nuclear safety, the process
requires robust analysis, planning, and science- and technology-based
solutions to modernize nuclear plants.
Fortunately, the DOE is carrying out this critical R&D through its
Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program. This program funds research
in materials, modeling, and system analytics to support extending the
operating life of the existing fleet.
By developing a science-based approach to understanding and
predicting the ways materials and nuclear plants behave over time, DOE
can help plant operators find ways to safely operate existing systems
while mitigating potential damage to reactor components.
DOE also funds R&D to support plant modernization efforts. This
includes developing ways to safely incorporate digital controls into
existing plant designs to help improve reactor efficiency, as well as
efforts to help existing plants operate with more flexibility.
I believe advanced reactor designs are the future of emissions-free
power around our world, but we cannot afford to throw away decades of
investment in the safe, reliable, clean power produced by our existing
light-water nuclear power plants. Through research to safely extend the
life of our existing nuclear fleet, DOE can ensure we maximize this
clean energy source.
Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Lamb in advance for working with me on
this amendment, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it once
he does his fabulous presentation.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the indefatigable gentleman on our committee.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Chair, I thank the chair and ranking member for
including and supporting my amendment in this bloc, and I thank Mr.
Foster for his support.
The amendment redirects an additional $15 million to the Leadership
Computing Facility at Argonne National Lab. This facility will be home
to Aurora, the first exascale computer in the U.S., if not the world.
We are currently in a race with China to build the first computer
that can perform 1 billion billion operations per second. This will
enable advanced simulations, such as climate modeling. It will also aid
in the discovery of new therapeutic drugs and the development of new
materials for solar energy production, batteries, and other advanced
technologies.
It is an economic and national security imperative that the U.S.
maintains leadership in supercomputing by developing a well-supported
exascale computer, and this amendment will help do that.
Madam Chair, I thank the chair and ranking member for their support.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I thank my good friend from Idaho and my good
colleagues from the other side of the aisle for allowing this amendment
to receive consideration.
Hydropower is one of the Nation's most affordable and reliable
renewable electricity resources. With over 100 gigawatts of installed
capacity, hydro makes up nearly 7 percent, on average, of all U.S.
annual electricity generation. As a matter of fact, hydro is the single
largest source of renewable electricity, representing over one-half of
all renewable energy generation in 2018.

This is due to the significant advantage hydropower generation, as a
baseload source of energy, has over intermittent sources, like wind and
solar. It provides predictable, continuous generation 24-7-365 without
the need to hold backup generation in standby to power the lights when
the Sun goes down or the wind stops. Because of this important
distinction, additional hydropower generation results in increased
generation rather than just capacity.
If we want to be serious about increasing renewable energy, we need
to focus on what works best. More can and must be done to significantly
expand this vital energy resource. Only 3 percent of the 80,000 dams in
the U.S. currently generate electricity, leaving substantial potential
for additional generation from unpowered dams. As a matter of fact, in
my home State of Pennsylvania, there is an estimated 678 megawatts of
untapped hydropower.
The recent trend of closures among baseload power generation
facilities threatens our Nation's ability to meet our energy needs.
Unleashing the full potential of hydropower provides a remedy that is
proven, reliable, and renewable.
Critical to realizing this potential is DOE's Water Power
Technologies Office. This amendment increases funding for the office by
$2 million to continue their important mission.
Madam Chair, I ask the support of my colleagues for this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Foster), probably one of the top scientists who has ever
served in this Chamber.
Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, first, I am a proud cosponsor of
Representative Lipinski's amendment, which would direct an increase of
$15 million to Argonne National Laboratory's Leadership Computing
Facility.
The ALCF is a national scientific user facility that provides
supercomputing resources and expertise to the scientific and
engineering community to accelerate the pace of discovery and
innovation in a broad range of disciplines. This money will be well
spent.
A second amendment, offered by myself, instructs the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to include
accelerator-driven systems in its evaluation of future nuclear
technology and fuel.
There is a bipartisan and bicameral interest in accelerating
investment in advanced nuclear reactors, which are walkaway safe and
proliferation-resistant and have the potential to burn or minimize
nuclear waste.
One proposed system uses a proton accelerator, a neutron spallation
target, and molten salt fuel, but it remains subcritical, thereby
greatly reducing the safety and security risks.
It can, without redesign, burn spent nuclear fuel, natural uranium,
thorium, or surplus weapons material, such as surplus plutonium. It
operates without the need for enrichment or reprocessing and may be
used to produce the tritium needed to maintain our stockpile.
Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), my good friend.

[[Page H4745]]

Mr. ROUZER. Madam Chair, I appreciate the courtesy of my good friend
from Idaho. I certainly appreciate his help and support with this
amendment that is included in this package.
Put very plainly, my amendment is designed to get the attention of
the Army Corps of Engineers and for a very good reason.
In the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016,
language was included requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to work
with localities that request a no-wake zone if there is a safety
concern caused by speeding boats generating large wakes in stretches of
federally maintained waters that run adjacent to a marina.
Southport, North Carolina, a beautiful waterfront community, has been
waiting nearly 3 years to have a no-wake zone established. That is 3
years of speeding boats creating wakes that have caused fuel spills at
Southport Marina and, thankfully, at least so far, only minor injuries
to date.
Everyone back home knows this poses a significant safety concern. We
just need for some who work in an agency known as the Army Corps of
Engineers to understand it just as well.
Common sense tells us that at some point, there is going to be a
major accident. This is a very high traffic area of recreational boats.
Doing nothing, as the Corps appears to favor, is not an option.
Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support of this
amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ruiz).
Mr. RUIZ. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support for this
block of amendments to H.R. 2740.
Included is my amendment to provide $2 million in critical funding
for Bureau of Reclamation projects with a public health benefit, such
as the Salton Sea in southern California.
The Salton Sea is a danger to Californian residents. Dust from the
exposed lake bed contains harmful particulate matter that blows into
communities and is inhaled by residents as far away as Los Angeles.
If we do not take decisive action now, the Salton Sea's decline will
accelerate, exacerbating this public health crisis and leading more
children and seniors to develop respiratory illnesses like asthma.
After Congress passed this amendment last year, the Bureau devoted
$2.5 million to mitigation projects at the Salton Sea. My amendment
would continue this essential funding to invest in the health of
families who live near the Salton Sea and beyond.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment to support
the public health of children, seniors, and families across southern
California, and I thank Chair Kaptur for her support and interest in
helping us with the Salton Sea.

{time} 2030

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb), a veteran.
Mr. LAMB. Madam Chair, I also rise to support these en bloc
amendments, particularly my amendment to increase and emphasize the
support for research in the Office of Nuclear Energy Light Water
Sustainability Program.
In my district in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, we gave birth to the
civilian nuclear fleet. President Eisenhower launched that plant in
1958, and many other plants have come up around the Nation providing
carbon-free, safe, reliable energy, and many of them have served long
past their useful life.
Tens of thousands of American workers keep these plants running
today. They keep us safe. We have to protect these plants, protect
these jobs, and, most importantly, protect our energy grid. We can do
that with better research into how to make these plants run more
efficiently, more cheaply, and more competitively.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Kaptur
and Ranking Member Simpson, and now I want to say thank you to my
colleague, who has got an excellent amendment, and I applaud it very
much. I want to say to all of my colleagues: Support it. It is a great
amendment, and we look forward to passing it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a hardworking Member from the Wolverine State.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, I am proud to support this bill,
and I thank Chairwoman Kaptur for her leadership.
I am especially pleased to see this bill's increased investment in
the important work of the Army Corps of Engineers to advance key water
infrastructure construction priorities.
My amendment prioritizes $30 million of that funding for critically
needed projects that improve the quality of freshwater bodies like Lake
St. Clair in my district.
To make urgent water quality improvements to Lake St. Clair, to the
Great Lakes, and to freshwater bodies across our country, we must
prioritize Federal funding for improving Macomb County's Chapaton
Retention Basin and other such sewer overflow systems that help us
protect the water sources our communities rely on every day.
I would like to point out that I am working on this with the now
director of public works in Macomb County, former Member of this body,
Candice Miller.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise to ask for support of this amendment.
Thirty-four of our Members, many have come to speak on their particular
interest. I have reached agreement on a bipartisan basis. I think that
speaks for itself, and I ask the membership to support this amendment
en bloc.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ESTES. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment to
the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Division that seeks to increase support for water reclamation projects.
Millions of people and businesses throughout our country are able to
enjoy a stable water supply thanks to this vital infrastructure.
One example is the Equus Beds Aquifer Recharge, Storage and Recovery
project in Wichita, Kansas.
Equus Beds provides the main water supply for nearly 500,000 people
in Wichita and the surrounding region.
In addition to servicing citizens, it is also vital for businesses
and farms throughout the entire area that includes cities such as
Wichita, Halstead, Newton, Hutchinson, McPherson, Valley Center and
others.
Equus Beds became a key component of Wichita's Integrated Local Water
Supply Plan in 1993, when it was determined that the city's water
supply would not meet demand by the year 2015.
Thankfully since its implementation, the Equus Beds Aquifer has
recharged 2.5 billion gallons of water to continue meeting the region's
needs.
Clearly, water reclamation projects like Equus Beds are critical to
sustaining the economy and quality of life in Wichita and throughout
our country.
Today I urge support for amendment 95 to H.R. 2740 to increase
support in the bill for water reclamation projects like the Equus Beds
Aquifer.
I ask my colleagues to approve this amendment en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from
Ohio will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 80 will not be offered.

Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Mullin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 89
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to prepare, propose,

[[Page H4746]]

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. 77802);
(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 436, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, my amendment would prohibit funds for
implementing the social cost of carbon rule.
Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap-and-
trade proposals. The Obama administration continuously used social cost
of carbon models, which can easily be manipulated in order to attempt
to justify new job-killing regulations.
I believe in efficiently using the Nation's vast energy resources
while protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land
we live on.
The House has a clear, strong record of opposition to the social cost
of carbon, voting at least 12 times to block, defund, or oppose the
proposal. A carbon tax would inevitably be passed along to consumers,
undermining the success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act we passed last
Congress.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, the amendment offered by my colleague from
Oklahoma prohibits the use of funds to prepare, to propose, or to
promulgate any regulation or guidance that references or relies on
analysis of the cost of social carbon.
It is really unfortunate that the Republican flat Earth faction is at
it again. This amendment tells the agencies funded in this bill to
ignore the latest climate change science. Astoundingly, the amendment
denies that carbon pollution is harmful. Wow.
According to this amendment, there is zero cost of carbon pollution.
That is denial at its worst. Ask any power plant operator who is
retired who contracted emphysema because of their work on those power
plants--and these people exist in our society if they haven't died
already--or heavy truck diesel mechanics who worked on retooling
engines when those fumes were in the garages when they gave their lives
to the public sector and they now have COPD, pulmonary disease.
This amendment is tantamount to saying that pollution caused climate
change, has no cost, and no one will ever get hurt. That is simply not
true.
Tell the American citizens who lost businesses, homes, and loved ones
to hurricanes, wildfires, and other recent natural disasters, and those
who continue to face unrelenting flooding in the Midwest that there are
no costs from climate change.
In the latest National Climate Assessment, our Nation's leading
climate scientists reiterated what we have known for years: Climate
change is real. It is evidenced by the climate-related indicators we
have observed, including longer seasons, extreme drought, flooding, sea
level rise, and more violent storms.
This amendment tells agencies funded in this bill to ignore reality
and these scientific findings. This is not only irresponsible, but a
blatant disregard to the well-being and security of this Nation and our
people, whom we are sworn to protect and defend.
The truth is that climate change is having catastrophic social and
economic impacts here in the United States and across our globe. These
are real. Ask the nearest farmer--and I just have been with them this
past week--who can't plant their fields in the Midwest. And those who
are less fortunate face the heaviest impact.
Now is not the time. In fact, that group of citizens who live in the
ninth ward in New Orleans below sea level comes to mind. 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
measuring the social cost of carbon is a much better way than believing
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.
Pretending that climate change doesn't exist won't make it go away. I
urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, there is a lot to unpack there, and we can
debate that all day, especially when you start bringing the farmers
into it, because you are looking at one. I don't have to be with them
because I am one of them, and I am from the Midwest.
But when you start saying that everything is the fault and everything
is to blame because of climate change, it has been changing for quite
some time, and we could go ahead and talk about that, too. However, I
am not going to change her mind, so we are going to agree to disagree.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROY. Madam 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 Oklahoma
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 90 Offered by Mr. Huffman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 90
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize the environmental impact statement for
the proposed Pebble Project (POA-2017-271).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, my amendment would stop the Army Corps of
Engineers from moving forward with their flawed environmental impact
statement for the proposed Pebble Mine.
Now, the Pebble Mine is a massive project that would be located in
the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed in southeast Alaska. It
threatens the entire Bristol Bay region: its people, its salmon, and
its multimillion-dollar economy.

[[Page H4747]]

The Bristol Bay watershed supports 25 federally recognized Tribes
that depend on salmon for food and their local economy and on a healthy
watershed for their clean water.
Bristol Bay's wild salmon have sustained Alaska's indigenous
communities for thousands of years by providing subsistence food,
subsistence-based livelihoods, and the foundation for their culture and
community. Salmon are the economic driver in Bristol Bay, and the
region supplies half of the world's sockeye salmon and 83 percent of
the country's salmon overall.
At about this time each year, commercial fishermen go to Bristol Bay
to harvest that amazing sockeye salmon run. The commercial harvest
results in more than $1 billion in economic impact, $500 million in
direct income, and 14,000 jobs.
Bristol Bay is also one of the most sought after sportsmen's
destinations. Hunting and recreational fishing draws visitors from
around the world, resulting in over a thousand jobs and nearly $80
million in direct spending.
The EPA has previously said the impacts of mining on fish populations
in the region could be catastrophic and irreversible. Over 3,500 acres
of wetlands and over 80 miles of stream, which are all connected to
salmon habitat, would be directly impacted by this mine and its
infrastructure.
The proposed project would also generate an average of 6.8 billion
gallons per year of wastewater during operations, 11.8 billion gallons
during closure, and all of it would require capture and treatment.
This is unprecedented. There is no other U.S. hard rock mining
operation that captures and treats such a massive volume of
contaminated mine water, which is harmful to fish and to public health.
We know that mines are not invincible. Things go wrong. And if any of
the negative impacts on waterways and ecosystems that have resulted
from other mine failures were to happen in Bristol Bay, the way of life
for Alaska Tribes, fishermen, businesses, and residents would be
devastated.
Bristol Bay already provides enough for a thriving economy and
supports a way of life that is sustainable for future generations. The
Pebble Mine puts all of that at risk, at risk of significant
irreversible damage. That is why the majority of Bristol Bay residents
and Alaskans oppose the project. It is why 53 other Members of Congress
have joined me in telling the Army Corps they should not permit this
mine.
While a thorough and rigorous review would clearly show that it is
the wrong mine and the wrong place, the Federal permitting process for
the Pebble Mine has been wholly insufficient. Tribal input is not being
incorporated, nor are Tribal governments being meaningfully consulted.
The Army Corps, itself, acknowledges numerous data gaps, and the review
fails to analyze economic feasibility and disaster scenarios or provide
comprehensive reclamation and mitigation plans.

{time} 2045

The rushed environmental review process has sparked wide-scale
opposition from throughout the country.
Fishermen, Tribes, sportsmen groups, businesses, conservation
organizations, all of them have weighed in in opposition to this
shoddy, wrongheaded Corps project.
My amendment would stop the Pebble Mine. It would stop this flawed
process. It prohibits funding to complete the process because there are
fundamental flaws with the Army Corps' current analysis.
Bristol Bay is a national treasure. We have to do this right or risk
losing an incredible resource. I urge support for my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, let me just say, first of all, that
everything you have heard from the former attorney for the NRDC is just
nonsense, and the reason it is nonsense is because he doesn't know.
Nobody knows. That is why we have a review of these procedures. That is
why we have NEPA.
That is why the National Environmental Policy Act is in place, which
many of my friends across the aisle view as the foundational
environmental law. It requires Federal agencies to evaluate the
environmental impacts of projects before the project can be approved.
The Corps is in the process of doing that.
Now, I don't know if he is worried that the outcome might not be like
he likes, but if everything he said is true, then they certainly won't
permit it.
To be clear, I am not advocating for or against this particular
project; I don't know enough about it. But what I am saying is Congress
should stay out of the process of individual reviews. Setting the
precedent of injecting political opinions into the NEPA process simply
means that any project in the future will be subject to the whims of
the majority party at the time.
Such a scenario should be a concern for all Members, Republicans and
Democrats alike. Perhaps next time the interest will be in
legislatively approving a specific project. This amendment would serve
as a precedent.
What I am saying is let the process work. We have put in place the
process. So all of the scenarios that he claims are going to be true,
we don't know if that is true or not because nobody knows yet. They are
just opinions.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, what we do know about this process is that
the Army Corps, itself, has acknowledged serious data gaps.
What we do know is that Tribal input has not been seriously
incorporated into this process, and we know that the National Marine
Fishery Services, which is the agency that should be there at the table
as a participating agency to protect this iconic fishery, is not
participating in this process.
So what this amendment would do is stop this deeply flawed process.
If the administration wants to try to start over and get it right, I
have just identified some of the ways in which this terribly flawed
process could be repaired and they could move forward in the next
budget.
But there are too many red flags waving. Bristol Bay and its salmon
are too important to the people of that region and to this country.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, if those are flaws in the process, then I
am sure that a court challenge by the NRDC will actually bring those
out.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), my friend.
Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Simpson), ranking member of the committee, and I was interested in
listening to this conversation.
I would really respectfully ask the Member to respect the district
which I represent. I am not talking about the mine. I am talking about
the process.
This is State land. They gave it to us, the Congress--State land.
They put it up for discovery. It was discovered. And under the clause
of the discovery, you have the right for exploration. Under the right
for exploration, you have a right for production, if it is possible to
process.
And the chairman, the ranking member put it very clearly: Let's go
through the process. What this gentleman from California is saying: We
are going to make a decision what is right for everything here, and
they don't know a damn thing about it, nothing, because they are
promoting people saying: This shouldn't be done. There is no science
behind it yet.
Science is what they talk about all the time. It is the bedrock. EIS
is the bedrock. And yet they are ignoring it, expecting this Congress
that doesn't know squat about the mining in Alaska.
It is our land, not their land. It is not Federal land. It is our
land.
I am saying, let the process work. Let the process go through. That
is what we are here for. Not for us to make decisions.
The ranking member put it very clearly. What are we going to do next
time? They will not be in the majority forever, and we will have some
things they do not want, and we will say we are going to do it.
They are ignoring the science, and they brag about the science all
the time. Let the science prove us right or wrong. That should be their
responsibility, not saying they are for or

[[Page H4748]]

against a mine and give all these doomsday things there. They may
happen. If that happens, it will not happen because it will not issue
the permits.
I want everybody to think about this a moment. What is happening here
tonight is for the interest of some environmental groups--which you
used to be head of, by the way--environmental groups to stop a project
that is not any of their business until science has not been proven. I
am saying let's look for it. Let's look for proven. I am saying let's
look for it. Let's look for the science. If that happens, then we will
do it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Simpson).
Madam Chair, this amendment also makes a mockery of our laws that
govern the permitting process for mining operations and is a complete
violation of basic fairness.
Specifically, this amendment supersedes the Democrats' supposed
flagship environmental regulatory law, NEPA--unbelievable.
Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is doing exactly what Congress
intended it to do under NEPA with regard to the proposed Pebble Mine
project. It is analyzing the environmental and socioeconomic
consequences of the proposed mine.
A wonderful adage is good process builds good policy, builds good
politics. We ought to embrace that. And if we really want to put our
nose in other places, maybe what we ought to do, as I challenge my good
friend from California, is, instead of focusing on this project, to
look at his State in his own district. Maybe he ought to be focusing on
the illegal marijuana farms in his district that are using pesticides
and polluting local waters and damaging national forests and our
plants.
This is something that is pertinent to Alaska, to the Member from
Alaska. The Tribes have been consulted. It is just that the one Tribe
that he is talking about, no process followed. But the people closest
to this that are most involved have been for this mine. They want good
process, and I oppose the amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam 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.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, I move
to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Panetta), my dear colleague.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio may not yield blocks of
time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Panetta).
Mr. PANETTA. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for this
opportunity.
I rise today in support of the funding in this appropriations bill
for flood and storm damage reduction in economically disadvantaged
areas.
Included in this bill, thank goodness, is $15 million for Army Corps
of Engineers projects in communities that have previously experienced
devastating floods and where the per capita income is less than half of
the State and national averages.
This type of funding, as we can tell, is critical for economically
disadvantaged communities across our country to not only recover from,
but prevent, destructive and deadly floods.
One of these areas is the Pajaro Valley in my district on the central
coast of California, an area where flooding has consistently hit it for
the past 25 years and caused millions of dollars of damage to the
surrounding agriculture crops. But it has also displaced hundreds and
hundreds of residents, many of whom work in those fields.
That is why this bill is very important, because it can provide
important funding for projects that protect the people who need it the
most, for businesses that need it the most, in my community and in
communities all across this country.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this funding bill, and I
thank Chairwoman Kaptur for this time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 91
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam 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:

In division E, strike section 106.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to
bring up this amendment today.
This amendment is pretty simple. In division E, section 106 has a
provision that says that no funds in this act or any other act may be
used to carry out any activities that would include transferring or
effectively modifying the mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I understand that it is pretty clear plain language, section 106,
division E.
The problem is this: If the performance of the agency were stellar, I
would understand that, and perhaps we would try and protect it, but let
me throw out a few statistics painting a picture of what it is that we
are dealing with.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, today, has a $100 billion backlog
in authorized projects--$100 billion. These projects are projects like
sustaining communities, resilience projects, flood protection,
ecological restoration, deepening navigation channels.
Let me tell a little about the performance of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Madam Chair.
You can look at ports in other countries. They have been able to
facilitate the Post-Panamax, the larger vessels.
In the United States, we are years or decades behind where we should
be, putting our ports at a disadvantage, resulting in our consumers
paying higher prices for those goods that are being shipped.
In regards to ecological restoration in my home State of Louisiana,
we lost 2,000 square miles of our coastal wetlands, had billions of
dollars in restoration projects authorized, and none of them are moving
forward--not even starting, in most cases.
We have hurricane and flood protection projects. I don't have to
remind anyone here. Hurricanes Irma, Maria, Michael, Florence; North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands. These places were pounded. People died
because of the lack of resilience, the lack of these projects being
carried out.
Lastly, Madam Chair, my home State of Louisiana, going back to 2005,
I heard a little while ago somebody talking about Hurricane Katrina.
What people don't realize or don't understand, the project that was
designed to stop that flooding, that devastation, the loss of 1,200 to
1,500 of my brothers, sisters, friends, relatives, neighbors, fellow
Louisianians, that project was authorized, dates back to the 1970s, and
it wasn't finished. It wasn't finished in 2005.
I am not asking to move the cord. I am asking to look at how to
improve, how to modify this. Let's look at a better result to where we
are not spending as we have in recent years, $1.7 trillion responding
to countless disasters across this country that have cost our Nation
over $1 billion a pop.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.

[[Page H4749]]

I share the gentleman's frustration, but I would like to say that I
think the answer is that so many projects within the Corps have never
had the infrastructure funding that they have needed to move forward,
and our bill does provide a leap forward in that direction.
I think it is an understatement to say that the Army Corps today has
its hands full, and I don't think we need to add any confusion by
trying to tinker around breaking up agencies and so forth at this
moment.

{time} 2100

Section 106 of the underlying bill was included in the bill after the
administration proposed breaking up the Army Corps and transferring
parts of it--arms, legs, heads--to other Federal agencies.
I don't really think that is in the Nation's interest. That plan was
met with wide bipartisan opposition from both sides of the Capitol.
Such a plan would require a plan to authorize that proposal, but of
course, the administration never presented Congress with draft
legislation.
Nevertheless, the administration doubled down on its shortsighted and
misguided plan and was set to begin planning efforts until Congress
stepped in last fall. The fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water Development
bill authored by my colleagues from across the aisle, included this
same provision which enjoyed bipartisan, bicameral support.
The Corps is responsible for the management of complex, multipurpose
projects, some vast, requiring expertise in many areas. Instead of
trying to break up and fragment the agency's responsibilities, I would
suggest that the administration focus on how it can make the Corps
successful in its current organizational structure, including deferring
to the technical judgment of the Corps instead of the constant
interference from OMB bureaucrats who have never laid a foundation, nor
operated spillways along the Mississippi or the Missouri, and so many
other responsibilities that the Corps holds across this country.
The Army Corps literally holds the lives and communities of the
American people in its jurisdiction. Let them do their job. And if they
are listening, they are cheering around this country.
I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the
same thing.
I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
appreciate my friend from Louisiana's passion on this issue.
Saying that the Corps has $100 billion backlog, it is not really the
Corps' fault for that. It is our fault in that we haven't appropriated
money. And if you look back through the years, the Bush administration,
the Obama administration, and, currently, the Trump administration,
always propose a budget that slashes and burns the Corps' budget. And
it is the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Subcommittee that won't let them do that and keeps putting money back
into it.
Last year, the Office of Management and Budget issued a plan for
reorganization of the Federal agencies that included moving the Civil
Works program from the Army Corps of Engineers to multiple other
agencies. Yet, very few details were provided to Congress. Congress was
not consulted, and no statutory changes were enacted. Yet, some in the
administration took steps to try to begin implementing the
reorganization proposal.
In response, that is why the language was put in last year's act, and
that is why it is in this year's act. I will tell the gentleman that we
have had this discussion many times with General Semonite, and he is a
go-get-'em guy. When he is given a mission, he will do whatever it
takes to get that mission accomplished. I like what he is doing.
I wouldn't want to go with OMB in saying we are going to reorganize
the Corps and not know exactly what they are going to do and have
Congress have no input. But I appreciate the passion that the gentleman
has for this, and I understand his frustration. And I think that it is
better placed on the Transportation Committee in seeing if there are
some reorganizations that can be done within the Corps and done
legislatively that make sense.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to thank the gentleman for
those remarks and to say that I share his deep concern about the way
that OMB, in particular, has a tennis match with Congress when it comes
to the Army Corps of Engineers.
There is not a more important infrastructure agency at this moment in
our country than the Army Corps. The administration said it was going
to come forward with an infrastructure bill. Well, if they can't do
whatever they are calling an infrastructure bill, this is the
infrastructure bill for this country at this time.
The needs are enormous. I can't imagine. We have 8 divisions and 38
districts. I want to thank every single individual out there sworn to
protect and defend the American people who work for the Army Corps of
Engineers and give their lives to this profession across this country.
General Semonite is a great patriot, and as were his predecessors. It
has a long history, and we really need to have more attention devoted
to Corps funding by various administrations that sit over there in the
executive branch and underfund these projects around the country. That
is why Louisiana had so much trouble and that is why other places in
the country have so much trouble.
So I do not support the gentleman's amendment. I urge opposition, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chairwoman, I just heard comments from
folks saying that Congress needs to step in. The Transportation
Committee should look at this and act, and perhaps propose
reorganization legislation or studies, and other things. And I hate to
bring this up, but Congress did just that.
Let me say it again. Congress did just that. Section 1102 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2018, which you both supported,
included language which actually says that the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and the Corps of Engineers should
enter into an agreement to look at more efficient delivery of Corps of
Engineers' projects.
This amendment doesn't move the Corps of Engineers out. What it does
is, it says, clearly, there is a problem. And if the problem is
Congress and the funding, then that is what the study will determine.
Let them go. Let them do the analysis, just like we did on a bipartisan
basis.
Congresswoman Esty and I offered the amendment. It was unanimously
accepted. It passed in this House twice, and it is law today. That is
all I am asking for. I am baffled that folks are afraid of information,
perhaps better ideas, on how to deliver these projects.

I understand that people have their perception of where the problems
are. Madam Chairwoman, if I bring anything to this Chamber, I have
spent more time working on Corps of Engineers projects than anybody
else and, in fact, I am going to go so far as to say than everybody
else in this Chamber combined.
I would be happy to throw the stats out. This is what I used to do. I
used to work with the Corps of Engineers on a daily basis doing
billions and billions of dollars' worth of projects.
This is a flawed process. We routinely were able to build projects
that the Corps of Engineers designed for one-half to one-third the
cost. Madam Chairwoman, what that does is, it allows it to build double
or triple the amount of projects for the same cost.
If we need to get this backlog broken then, certainly, that is an
efficiency that we can bring to the table. Why are people afraid of
information? This status quo is not working. I shudder to think about
what everyone is going to do and say next time we have a catastrophic
disaster in an area where there is a Corps of Engineers project that
sat there for decades.
This is a flawed process. The status quo has failed. I urge adoption
of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Shalala). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H4750]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Banks

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 97
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
Mr. BANKS. 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 E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. _. Each amount made available in division E, except
those amounts made available to the Department of Defense, is
hereby reduced by 14 percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Banks) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Chairwoman, in total, the Energy and Water
Development division cost the American taxpayers $46.4 billion.
That is a 4 percent increase above the fiscal year 2019-enacted
level. Specifically, the division includes $23.3 billion for nondefense
activities, which is an increase of $1.1 billion above the fiscal year
2019-enacted level.
My amendment would apply a 14 percent reduction across the board to
the nondefense activities included in this division. Without it, we are
on track toward sequestration, which would have devastating effects on
our national security.
This amendment is necessary because we are at a $22 trillion national
debt. That is trillion, with a T. Even before my friends across the
aisle offered this reckless spending package, the Congressional Budget
Office estimated that we were on track to spend $1 trillion on interest
payments in 2029. That means one-fifth of the entire budget would go to
paying off previous years of irresponsible spending.
Madam Chairwoman, we simply cannot continue down this path. We must
balance our books before writing new checks for this fiscal year.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
Minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
because really, it takes us backwards. The gentleman is from Indiana. I
am from Ohio. I think both of us have seen individuals that we
represent go off to war. How many wars have we gotten into over the
issue of oil and the oil supply of the globe?
The Department of Energy has been inventing the future to a point
where now, we are 90 percent self-sufficient inside the boundaries of
this country. This department helps to invent the future and helps
America be more secure. Every one of us has some sense of what is
happening with cyberattacks in our energy systems.
Over the weekend, a major retailer, Target, for whatever reason, all
the cash registers went dead around the country. Was it just a
satellite problem? Was it an attack by a foreign aggressor? I simply
don't know. But I know this department isn't a place where we should be
cutting.
Climate change, whether one wishes to admit it or not, is going to
require a change in our way of life. This department is essential to
help us move in that direction in a very organized manner. Every penny
counts and every step we take to help the American people be more
secure is needed.
This bill funds critical water resource projects and supports science
and energy technology. It helps our businesses be more competitive. It
funds a credible nuclear deterrent where we have commitments and also
nonproliferation, which is important not just to our country, but to
the world.
I think the gentleman's amendment will actually harm all of these
fronts and reduce protections against what the American people are
facing from coast to coast right now.
I think that the gentleman's objectives on balancing the budget are
correct, but I don't think it should be taken out of the hide of these
programs. There are other ways to do that--some of the giveaways to the
billionaire class in this country who have had the privilege of living
a good life and earning a great deal of money in this country.
Everybody has got to pitch in. But I don't think where we are inventing
the future and helping the American people become more secure in our
way of life is the place to hack away.
I urge a continued investment in these areas for purposes of our
national security and to remain a global leader in energy, water, and
science. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Chairwoman, I was proud this year to lead the
Republican Study Committee's effort in creating and drafting our own
budget as part of the Budget and Spending Task Force.
I gathered together with several of my colleagues, coming from
different States and different views, and we worked tirelessly for
months to produce a budget that would cut wasteful government spending
by $12.6 trillion over a 6-year time period.
This is not just the only budget offered in this body that balances.
It is the only budget that has been offered at all. The fact that my
friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to even offer a budget
shows a stunning lack of leadership.
This is my third amendment to cut across the board 14 percent in each
of the divisions of these minibuses.

{time} 2115

My amendment reflects the values of the RSC budget and is a necessary
first step toward eventually achieving a balanced budget.
Madam Chair, I will continue to come back to this floor and offer
this amendment time and time again because I refuse to condemn my
daughters to a less prosperous America than the one that every Member
of this Chamber has been blessed to know.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I urge opposition to 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 Indiana (Mr. Banks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROY. Madam 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 Indiana will
be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 103 will not be offered.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
DeGette) having assumed the chair, Ms. Shalala, 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. 2740)
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________