[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.

                          ____________________