[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8140-8165]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on the further consideration 
of H.R. 5325, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 667 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. 5325.
  Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  0916


                     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. 5325) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas (Acting Chair) 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
May 31, 2012, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has 
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional 
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5325

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, namely:

                   TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to river and harbor, flood 
     and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, and related efforts.

                             investigations

       For expenses necessary where authorized by law for the 
     collection and study of basic

[[Page 8141]]

     information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm 
     damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, and related needs; for surveys and detailed 
     studies, and plans and specifications of proposed river and 
     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 
     and aquatic ecosystem restoration, projects and related 
     efforts prior to construction; for restudy of authorized 
     projects; and for miscellaneous investigations, and, when 
     authorized by law, surveys and detailed studies, and plans 
     and specifications of projects prior to construction, 
     $102,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                              construction

       For expenses necessary for the construction of river and 
     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects 
     authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, and plans 
     and specifications, of such projects (including those 
     involving participation by States, local governments, or 
     private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by 
     law (but such detailed studies, and plans and specifications, 
     shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
     construction); $1,477,284,000, to remain available until 
     expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the 
     Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived 
     from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by 
     Public Law 104-303; and of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover one-half of the costs of construction, replacement, 
     rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects 
     shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That the limitation concerning total project costs 
     in section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2280), shall not apply during 
     fiscal year 2013 to any project that receives funds provided 
     in this title.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5-
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present 
this amendment.
  What we're doing is we're transferring $10 million from the 
Department of Energy salary and expenses account over the Corps of 
Engineers' construction account. The reason this is critical is because 
it allows us to move forward on infrastructure improvements, including 
in Louisiana something that we've been trying to do to restore our 
coast and get moving on the Louisiana coastal area, which is one of 
many projects in the Corps' budget that is backlogged and not funded, 
and yet is critical for improving infrastructure, for creating jobs, 
and for doing things to protect our wetlands.
  Mr. Chairman, I bring this football because in Louisiana we lose one 
football field of land every hour along the gulf coast in Louisiana due 
to coastal erosion. We have a plan that we put forth. Governor Bobby 
Jindal and his team have a solid plan in place that they've moved 
forward on. Mr. Chair, this is an authorized program. We're just trying 
to make sure that this program can move forward like so many others 
across the country that would improve our waterways and would 
strengthen our coastlines.
  You've got salaries that are being funded for projects now. And if 
you look at the Department of Energy, we've actually cut back on a lot 
of the work that they do at the Department of Energy. Rightfully so. 
They are eliminating programs that are unnecessary, and yet their 
salaries still continue to go up.

                              {time}  0920

  You know, we ask people to do more with less. In this case, they're 
doing less with more, and so we're moving money out of a salaries 
account for people that are doing less work and moving it into actually 
doing coastal projects, actually doing work that improves our coasts 
and strengthens the area, protects the vital infrastructure for the oil 
and gas industry that feeds this Nation's energy needs and the seafood 
that feeds this Nation's great taste for great things like shrimp and 
oysters and crabs.
  This is a bipartisan amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) for helping us with this amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
  Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you to my colleague from Louisiana. We have the 
great honor and awesome responsibility of representing the coast of 
Louisiana.
  Mr. Chairman, the coast of Louisiana, since 1950, has sent to the 
American Treasury almost $150 billion. Up until 2006, we didn't receive 
any revenues back from the Federal Government for drilling off of our 
Outer Continental Shelf.
  What we do today is ask for the ability to help ourselves, protect 
our citizens, and make this country safer. At the end of the day, I'd 
like to remind the Chair that our State has over 40 percent of the 
Nation's wetland losses. We have 80 percent of wetland loss, we only 
have 40 percent of the Nation's wetlands.
  If you look at what we give back to this country, I think that you 
will see that a $10 million investment would be a very good investment 
into our country, into our State, if you look at the cost-benefit 
analysis.
  Our wetlands produce a third of the Nation's seafood supply and much 
of our domestic energy. Our coast is the home to the port, the 
country's largest port system. These ports move the overwhelming 
majority of our imports and exports in this country.
  It's not just about the oil and gas production, it's not just about 
Louisiana's importance in terms of our energy production for this 
country, but it also makes the residents of Louisiana safer. That 
coastal land and those barrier islands produce the first defense 
against hurricanes. We also saw during Hurricane Katrina, the 
devastation that could be caused.
  We're just asking this body to approve this amendment, which will 
help Louisiana protect our citizens, protect America's energy 
production.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for his comments, 
and I just urge all of our colleagues to vote for this amendment so 
that we can actually use money to do real projects instead of to fund 
the bureaucracy of Washington. Especially when we're actually reducing 
the workload that they have to do, let's actually shift that money over 
to an area where we can actually increase jobs, protect our Nation, 
protect our energy and infrastructure that benefits the entire country.
  With that, I would urge passage of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do appreciate the passion of both of these 
gentlemen for coastal restoration. I know it's a high priority for his 
district and his State. Of course, the focus is Louisiana, and they 
have suffered greatly.
  The bill before us includes $10 million to continue studies, 
engineering, and design work on various components of their program in 
Louisiana. That is more than 9 percent of the entire investigations 
account dedicated to continuing work on coastal restoration in 
Louisiana.
  The committee has had to make some tough choices in this bill, 
though. While overall funding for the Corps of Engineers has increased 
slightly above the President's request, unfortunately, it is reduced by 
4 percent from fiscal year 2012. The construction account, 
specifically, is also slightly above the President's budget request, 
but that is still a reduction of almost 13 percent from fiscal year 
2012.
  The Corps has numerous projects already under construction that were 
not included in the President's budget and so are unlikely to be funded 
in fiscal year 2013. While construction funding is trending downward, I 
believe it is most prudent to prioritize funding for ongoing projects 
so they can be completed, actually completed, and the Federal 
Government can realize the public safety, economic and other benefits 
from previous spending rather than starting new projects.

[[Page 8142]]

  Given this particular project as currently authorized approaches $2 
million and likely will continue to grow in costs, it would not be 
prudent to begin another new major new project while we have so many 
existing commitments.
  For these reasons, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and rise to express, 
first of all, to my colleague and friend from Louisiana my appreciation 
for his argument today, and particularly the football analogy that he 
used. I say that as a Notre Dame graduate, and I would congratulate him 
on his victory the last time our two teams played on the field.
  Having said that, however, both he and my colleague on the Democratic 
side, I join with the chairman in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment. The chairman has opted for a policy of no new starts, a 
policy that I strongly support and have opted for during these times of 
budgetary constraints.
  I would point out that while there is only $10 million in the 
amendment before the House today, the fact is this project will cost 
several billion dollars by the time we are done, and starting it now is 
a cost that we cannot afford to adequately fund because we do not have 
the resources in the bill.
  Over the last several years, we have, in fact, terminated hundreds of 
ongoing projects, to our great dismay and to the weakening of the 
infrastructure of our economy in this country. But until we as an 
institution, the Congress, have the intestinal fortitude to adequately 
fund our infrastructure in these types of very necessary investment--
that is not the argument before us--I cannot support adding to the 
inventory of projects that we must start but cannot.
  If the allocation for the bill were different, I might be able to 
support the gentleman's amendment. Again, as it now stands, we are 
short of cash. The fact is the amount in the bill today--and the 
chairman and I and every member of the subcommittee fought to add $82 
million to the President's request. We are $631 million today, in this 
bill, below what we were spending as a Nation on these projects 2 years 
ago. We don't have the money, unfortunately, to fund the gentleman's 
amendment, and therefore, again, I express my sincere appreciation for 
what he wants to do but my reluctant opposition to his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.

                              {time}  0930

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season 
officially begins, and so I come to the floor to speak for increased 
resources to prevent flood damage, as they have devastated our 
communities in New Jersey and around the eastern United States.
  In H.R. 5325, Chairman Frelinghuysen and the committee have provided 
for the U.S. Corps of Engineers $1.5 billion for planning, training, 
and other measures to ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond to 
floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. I thank the chairman 
and the committee for that work.
  This amount is $216.7 million below the amount that the Corps 
received for flood preparation in 2012. My amendment would provide an 
additional $2 million so the Corps can continue critical lifesaving 
flood preparation work. Although this won't close the funding gap, my 
amendment would demonstrate the commitment of Congress to addressing 
proactively the variety of problems that can result from severe weather 
events and flooding.
  Last August and September, many central New Jersey residents 
experienced flood damage due to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. 
Evacuations and property damage can be a heavy burden to bear for many 
of our constituents. In recent years, there have been deaths in New 
Jersey from such flooding.
  I was traveling through my district during and after last year's 
hurricane and saw firsthand the flooding damage in the Delaware and 
Raritan River Basins and elsewhere. When Hurricane Irene hit New Jersey 
last year, it cast more than 10,000 people from their homes and left 
more than 190,000 utility customers without power; 11 inland rivers and 
their tributaries crested, with some at record levels.
  The best time to address flooding is before the severe weather 
occurs. Unfortunately, it seems that severe weather events like floods 
and droughts will become only more common as the Earth's temperature 
continues to rise. There are a number of critical infrastructure and 
public works projects throughout central New Jersey that the Corps is 
at work on, that the Corps is aware of, that the Corps is planning to 
deal with, and they must continue in order to prepare for these severe 
weather events.
  Again, I appreciate the foresight and the wisdom of Chairman 
Frelinghuysen. This amendment would provide additional funds and 
incentives to the Corps to continue with these important projects.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman, my 
colleague from New Jersey, is trying to show support for the Army Corps 
of Engineers' construction program. He's been a longtime advocate for 
projects important to his district, and I commend him for that.
  And I agree with him in his desire to invest more in water resources 
infrastructure. There have been numerous flood control needs, for 
instance, across the entire country, including our home State of New 
Jersey. Experience has shown us that it's cheaper to try to prevent 
flood damages than trying to recover from them.
  Although I believe the underlying bill that we've put together--Mr. 
Visclosky and I--struck a careful balance among all priorities in the 
bill, including national security and innovation, I do not have any 
objection to his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would join the chairman in supporting the amendment.
  I would mention that the Corps' investment in 2010 alone protected 
infrastructure in this country and prevented over $28 billion worth of 
damages. The amendment is a modest one and it is spread across all of 
the accounts for a 0.14 percent increase. As the chairman noted, he 
worked very vigorously to increase the amounts over the President's 
request by $6 million. We remain $217 million below last year's level.
  So, again, I would join the chair in supporting the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

[[Page 8143]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 5, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $571,429)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment, which strikes 
a million dollars out of the Fish and Wildlife account and it inserts 
$571,429 into the Reserve Maintenance account. So it is a net savings 
of $428,571, which would go to deficit reduction.
  But my purpose is not to focus on the deficit reduction component of 
this, Mr. Chairman. My purpose is to make the statement that we have 
watched in that Missouri River system, the Pick-Sloan system that has 
six dams upstream and the longest channel in the United States going 
downstream, and we suffered a flood last summer, the 2011 flood of epic 
proportions.
  The system had been designed and completed in 1968 based upon the 
largest runoff ever, which was 1881. Now it's 2011. Now the Corps of 
Engineers declares that last year's flood was a 500-year event. USGS 
says it's between a 70- and a 1,000-year event. The Corps picked the 
500-year event, which defines it as an anomaly for them, and they 
refuse to manage the river in a fashion that protects us from serious 
downstream flooding. So instead of creating a habitat for fish and 
wildlife, which is the least tern, the piping plover, and the pallid 
sturgeon, now we have hundreds of miles of camel habitat--sand and dead 
trees--from the flooding.
  I have a bill, H.R. 2942, that needs to move through this Congress. 
This is an opportunity to speak to the necessity to direct the Corps of 
Engineers to protect us from serious downstream flooding and consider 
fish and wildlife in the interests upstream. This redirects some of 
those funds to that to send a message to the Corps of Engineers to take 
a little bit out of their Fish and Wildlife account, which is around 
$70 million, and put a little bit into their Maintenance account, which 
is around $7 million, and start to adjust this proportion.
  But it is a token vote, Mr. Chairman, because there's much more that 
needs to be done. We need to be able to discharge 120,000 cubic feet 
per second out of Gavins Point Dam and be able to maintain that within 
the channel. If we can do that, then the fisheries' interests upstream 
have a very minimal impact when the Corps is finally, under H.R. 2942, 
directed to adjust the levels to protect us from serious downstream 
flooding.
  That is the argument. I urge the adoption of this amendment, the 
message that would be sent, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from 
Iowa for his strong advocacy and passion for his district and his State 
and his constituents. First and foremost, he's very, very concerned 
about a critical issue.
  We all know that there are significant water resource needs across 
our country, and we're doing our best in our bill to address them 
responsibly. The clarification I would like to be make is that the 
amendment simply adjusts overall account numbers. It does not direct 
funding to any specific project.
  I would advise, respectfully, the gentleman and any other colleagues 
thinking of offering similar amendments--and we understand why people 
do; because they have a passion--that under the earmark ban, the final 
bill will not include funding towards specific projects in an amount 
above the President's budget request.
  Instead of listing specific projects, our bill includes additional 
funding for categories of ongoing projects, primarily navigation and 
flood control. Final project-specific allocations will be made by the 
administration following the enactment of our bill.
  With that clarification in mind, I'm pleased to support the 
gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. While I regret that we just received a copy of the 
gentleman's amendment while he was speaking, I have no objection to it, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   mississippi river and tributaries

       For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects 
     and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley 
     below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, 
     $224,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of 
     eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors 
     shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

                       operation and maintenance

       For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
     care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
     reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related 
     projects authorized by law; providing security for 
     infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including 
     administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor 
     channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public 
     agency that serve essential navigation needs of general 
     commerce, where authorized by law; surveying and charting 
     northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 
     clearing and straightening channels; and removing 
     obstructions to navigation, $2,507,409,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and 
     maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for 
     inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 
     Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available from the 
     special account for the Corps of Engineers established by the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived 
     from that account for resource protection, research, 
     interpretation, and maintenance activities related to 
     resource protection in the areas at which outdoor recreation 
     is available; and of which such sums as become available from 
     fees collected under section 217 of Public Law 104-303 shall 
     be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the 
     dredged material disposal facilities for which such fees have 
     been collected: Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount 
     of funds provided for each of the programs, projects or 
     activities funded under this heading shall not be allocated 
     to a field operating activity prior to the beginning of the 
     fourth quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for 
     use by the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency 
     activities as the Chief of Engineers determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers 
     shall allocate during the fourth quarter any remaining funds 
     which have not been used for emergency activities 
     proportionally in accordance with the amounts provided for 
     the programs, projects or activities.

                           regulatory program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $190,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

       For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites 
     in the United States resulting from work performed as part of 
     the Nation's early atomic energy program, $104,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and 
     other natural disasters and support emergency operations, 
     repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters 
     as authorized by law, $27,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cleaver

  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 8144]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 6, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
bolster the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to fight floods and to 
quickly begin repair efforts as the floodwaters recede. Last year, my 
constituents, as well as thousands of others living along the Missouri 
River, experienced a flood of historic proportions and catastrophic 
damages. Levees were overtopped or breached, fields were damaged, and 
hundreds of farmers, homeowners, and businesses had to evacuate. Over 
400,000 acres of farmland were flooded along the river, including 
approximately 207,000 in Missouri. Total repair costs from the flood 
are estimated to reach $2 billion.
  The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account provides funding to 
assist in the immediate flood-fighting efforts and the repairs. 
Historically, Congress has provided limited funding annually for this 
account, mainly relying on supplemental appropriations as emergencies 
arise.
  Funding for this account the last 2 years has been lower than the 5-
year average appropriation of $55 million. As was the case last year, 
after an emergency the Corps must wait on supplemental appropriations 
from Congress or they must transfer funds from existing appropriations 
for temporary emergency efforts. The Corps did this internal transfer 
last year during and after the 2011 flood. However, it takes time to 
transfer those funds and temporarily deprives other worthy projects of 
funding. This is especially burdensome given the Corps' long 
construction backlog of over $62 billion worth of projects.
  This amendment is a straight transfer of funds to increase funding 
for the Corps' Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account and in 
turn reduce funding for the Corps' expenses account. This transfer 
would increase the funding to equal the amount that the Senate 
Appropriations Committee allocated, bringing total funding for that 
account to $30 million for fiscal year 2013.
  Mr. Chairman, ensuring adequate annual funding for emergencies will 
better prepare the Corps to respond and save time and effort in trying 
to reroute funds. And we all know that emergencies will continue to 
occur as our climate continues changing and development continues in 
flood-prone areas. It is incumbent upon us to provide the people who 
respond to these emergencies with the most resources possible. And so 
on behalf of the families living along the Missouri River who are in 
desperate need of help from this body, I ask for your support by 
adopting this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. 
Let me assure the gentleman that we are very sympathetic to his concern 
for fixing the infrastructure that was damaged in last year's flood 
event. In fact, we provided $1.7 billion to the Corps of Engineers for 
that exact purpose.
  The issue the gentleman raises, however, is something that all 
Members need to be aware of: based on the definitions in last year's 
amendments to the Budget Control Act, disaster relief funds may only be 
used in locations declared major disasters under the Stafford Act.
  For some agencies, like FEMA, that may make sense. But for the Corps 
of Engineers, there are times when that definition is too restrictive. 
We all need to be aware of the potential consequences of forcing 
regular appropriations to the account for these disaster-related 
damages that happen to be in the wrong location according to the Budget 
Control Act.
  That notwithstanding, the gentleman's amendment would try to address 
some of these needs, and I'm pleased to support his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in support of the amendment, and join with the 
comments made by the chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                                expenses

       For expenses necessary for the supervision and general 
     administration of the civil works program in the headquarters 
     of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division 
     Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the 
     Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for 
     Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and 
     Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of 
     Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works 
     program, $177,500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2014, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation purposes and only 
     during the current fiscal year: Provided, That no part of any 
     other appropriation provided in title I of this Act shall be 
     available to fund the civil works activities of the Office of 
     the Chief of Engineers or the civil works executive direction 
     and management activities of the division offices: Provided 
     further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 
     appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general 
     administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other 
     activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other 
     natural disaster.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 7, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,325,000)''.
       Page 7, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $150,000)''.
       Page 13, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $45,000)''.
       Page 16, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,710,000)''.
       Page 31, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 47, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,259,510)''.
       Page 48, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $882,450)''.
       Page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $350,310)''.
       Page 48, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $320,370)''.
       Page 49, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $42,750)''.
       Page 49, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,500)''.
       Page 50, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,810,840)''.
       Page 51, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $102,000)''.
       Page 52, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000)''.
       Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $27,036,730)''.

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  Mr. DICKS. I object to the suspending of the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the 
administrative and salaries and expenses accounts in the underlying 
bill by just 3 percent. It is similar to an amendment that I offered to 
the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill just a few weeks 
ago.
  My message today is the same as it was then: we are in a fiscal 
emergency, and it is imperative that we work to get spending under 
control here in Washington, D.C.
  Over the last 2 years, the House has voted to reduce our own 
administrative

[[Page 8145]]

accounts--our Members representational allowances--by over 11 percent. 
As we all know, this has resulted in pay freezes, and in some cases pay 
cuts, for a number of our own staff members.
  Yet during this same period of time, many agencies have seen 
reductions which are much lower than those which we have taken here in 
the House.

                              {time}  0950

  Amazingly, some of these agencies funded under this bill have seen 
large increases in their administrative accounts. For example, under 
this bill, the Appalachian Regional Commission would receive a 9 
percent increase in its administrative account over the FY11-FY13 
period. Likewise, the salaries and the expenses account for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board would see a 21 percent increase. But if 
you think those increases are big, think again. This legislation would 
provide the Department of Energy's departmental administration account 
with a 64 percent increase over 2 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm not arguing the merits of any of these agencies. 
But during this fiscal crisis, just 3 percent could yield significant 
savings--nearly $30 million in the case of agencies funded under this 
bill.
  It's time to tighten our belts. I urge support on my amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but 
certainly understand it and share the passion of the gentleman for 
reducing Federal spending, and our bill does plenty of that. As we went 
through the process, we did exactly that.
  This amendment would cut administrative expenses across the entire 
bill. Over many months and public hearings, our committee, in a 
bipartisan way, has already considered each administrative account 
separately and has made specific cuts while maintaining oversight to 
prevent wasteful spending. We've done our job. The gentleman's 
amendment cuts all administrative accounts indiscriminately without 
regard to where funds are needed and where cuts are possible.
  We understand where he is going, but the committee has done its work. 
Therefore, I must strongly oppose his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time. I continue to reserve my point 
of order, though.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to express my strong opposition 
to the amendment. Some would suggest outrage; I will simply say 
opposition.
  The fact is, across-the-board cuts to administrative accounts when we 
have significant problems as far as the administration of some of these 
programs in the Department of Energy is a profound mistake.
  What I really want to emphasize at this point to all of our 
colleagues in the House is that members of this subcommittee and the 
full Appropriations Committee--which approved this bill, the people of 
this committee approved this bill--have made value judgments account by 
account.
  The fact is, for renewable energy--and we will have amendments on 
this issue--there is a $428,345,000 reduction in this bill. In the 
Office of Science, there is a $72,203,000 reduction. For environmental 
clean-up for defense sites, for example, there is an $88,872,000 cut. 
These were all discrete decisions made and value judgments.
  So I would emphasize to my colleagues that there are significant cuts 
and savings in this bill. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.
  The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of new budget 
authority in the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  To amend portions of the bill not yet read pursuant to section 
3(j)(1) of House Resolution 5, an amendment must propose only to 
transfer appropriations from an object or objects in the bill to a 
spending reduction account.
  Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia proposes 
to increase the spending reduction account by more than the amount 
being transferred out of other accounts, it may not avail itself of 
section 3(j)(1) of House Resolution 5 to address the spending reduction 
account.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

     office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works

       For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), 
     $5,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.

                        administrative provision

       The Revolving Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available 
     during the current fiscal year for purchase (not to exceed 
     100 for replacement only) and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles for the civil works program.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in this title 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act;
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
       (5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
       (6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by 
     more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
       (b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or 
     activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, 
     section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996, or section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992.
       (c) The Corps of Engineers shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the 
     funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or 
     categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 102.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to award or modify any contract that commits 
     funds beyond the amounts appropriated for that program, 
     project, or activity that remain unobligated, except that 
     such amounts may include any funds that have been made 
     available through reprogramming pursuant to section 101.
       Sec. 103.  None of the funds in this Act, or previous Acts, 
     making funds available for Energy and Water Development, 
     shall be used to award any continuing contract that commits 
     additional funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 
     unless or until such time that a long-term mechanism to 
     enhance revenues in this Fund sufficient to meet the cost-
     sharing authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (Public Law 99-662) is enacted.
       Sec. 104.  Within 120 days of the date of the Chief of 
     Engineers Report on a water resource matter, the Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) shall submit the report 
     to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees 
     of the Congress.
       Sec. 105.  During the fiscal year period covered by this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Army is authorized to implement 
     measures recommended in the efficacy study authorized under 
     section 3061 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
     (121 Stat. 1121) or in interim reports, with such 
     modifications or emergency measures as the Secretary of the 
     Army determines to be appropriate, to prevent aquatic 
     nuisance species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way 
     of any hydrologic connection between the Great Lakes and the 
     Mississippi River Basin.
       Sec. 106.  The Secretary of the Army may transfer to the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, and

[[Page 8146]]

     the Fish and Wildlife Service may accept and expend, up to 
     $4,300,000 of funds provided in this title under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance'' to mitigate for fisheries lost 
     due to Corps of Engineers projects.
       Sec. 107.  None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be available for use by the Chicago District of the United 
     States Army Corps of Engineers to fund any travel that is 
     outside of the District's area of operation unless such 
     travel is directly project-related or is specifically 
     requested by a Member of Congress.
       Sec. 108.  Of the funds provided for ``Olmsted Locks and 
     Dam, Ohio River, IL & KY'' in the table under the heading 
     ``Corps of Engineers Civil--Construction'' in the report of 
     the Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, not 
     more than 50 percent may be available for obligation until--
       (1) the Corps of Engineers completes a review of the 
     project, including method of construction;
       (2) the Corps of Engineers develops a plan for the 
     expeditious completion of project construction;
       (3) the findings of the review and the project completion 
     plan have been communicated to the appropriate committees of 
     the Congress.
       Sec. 109.  Amounts made available by this Act for the 
     ``Investigations'', ``Construction'', and ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' accounts of the Corps of Engineers may not be 
     used as provided under the heading ``Additional Funding for 
     Ongoing Work'' in the matter relating to each such account in 
     the report of the Committee on Appropriations to accompany 
     this Act until the report required under such heading is 
     submitted.
       Sec. 110.  None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any subsequent Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development may be used by the Corps of Engineers to develop, 
     adopt, implement, administer, or enforce a change or 
     supplement to the rule dated November 13, 1986, or guidance 
     documents dated January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, 
     pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.).


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 12, beginning on line 6, strike section 110.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, as the Clerk read, this would strike section 
110 of this bill.
  This is a legislative rider that is bad policy and does not belong in 
an appropriations bill. This rider, 110, permanently blocks the Army 
Corps of Engineers from fixing existing policies that are confusing and 
inconsistent and not working. It risks great harm to fresh sources of 
drinking water, and it jeopardizes flood protection and outdoor 
recreation, specifically because section 110 prohibits the Army Corps 
from clarifying the limits of Federal and State authority under the 
Clean Water Act.
  Mr. Chairman, two Supreme Court cases over the last decade addressed 
the scope of the Federal Government's authority under the Clean Water 
Act. The Court's rulings did not require less regulation and 
protections, but urged the Congress and the executive branch to provide 
a sound rationale and consistency to clarify the limits of Federal 
authority. The Corps and the EPA have now issued draft guidance 
clarifying Federal authority that adheres to the Court's rules. 
Congress, by contrast, has not.
  With this rider, Congress is about to make matters much worse--worse 
because blocking completion of the guidance and any subsequent 
regulations which the bill's rider would do would be bad for the 
public's health, bad for businesses, and bad for farmers. It's 
especially bad for 117 million Americans whose drinking water comes 
from headwaters and non-perennial streams. Shouldn't we be concerned 
about what toxic material is dumped into these streams?
  It's bad for American businesses who need certainty. Without updated 
guidance, businesses will often not know when they need a Corps' permit 
in order to develop land.

                              {time}  1000

  This uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal liability, 
and certainly will cost them extra money.
  It's bad for farmers because this rider eliminates the agricultural 
exclusion for prior converted cropland that was added to the waters of 
the United States rule at the farmers' request.
  Section 110 invalidates all rules issued after the rule dated 
November 13, 1986, but not until 1993 did the Corps and EPA define the 
waters of the U.S. to exclude ``prior converted cropland.''
  Claims that Federal guidance and regulations are unnecessary because 
of State clean water programs are wrong as well. Thirty-three States 
joined a brief in the most recent of the Supreme Court cases urging the 
Court to uphold Federal protections for wetlands adjacent to non-
navigable streams. States noted that Federal safeguards were critical 
(A) because water flows between States, (B) because maintaining a 
Federal floor of pollution control creates parity between States, and 
(C) because States have come to rely on Federal protections and would 
face serious administrative and financial burdens if they were solely 
responsible for these requirements.
  Finally, even though the rider may block the guidance clarifying 
Federal and State authority, it does not make the Clean Water Act 
requirements for a permit go away. States are still required to 
implement and enforce the law, and dischargers still must obey it. 
Likewise, third parties may still file lawsuits.
  The real consequence of this rider will be to frustrate the Federal 
Government's efforts to explain where State or Federal authority under 
the Clean Water Act ceases to exist. If this rider prevails, more 
lawsuits will ensue.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote to strike this rider to bring clarity 
to a confusing issue.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that many of the groups involved have 
finally come together and realized that they need clarity on a very 
difficult issue. There are times when water goes underground during the 
summer and the surface dries up, but that water is still present, and 
much of that water is interstate. You need Federal control.
  One of the biggest things that I think perhaps the gentleman may not 
be aware of is the fact that this rider, if it is passed in this bill, 
would eliminate the agricultural exclusion for prior converted 
cropland. The fact is that this rider invalidates all rules that were 
issued after November 13, 1986, and it wasn't until 1993 that the Corps 
and EPA defined the waters of the U.S. to exclude prior converted 
cropland. So a lot of the farm community is going to be very upset if 
the gentleman's rider is not removed. And the fact that 33 States have 
joined a brief asking the Federal Government to do what the EPA and the 
Federal Corps of Engineers is doing means that we are going to cause 
major problems if this rider is passed in this bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, you heard it here first. My urban 
colleague says the Federal Government wants to control your water on 
private property in rural areas like Montana.
  The life of a Montana farmer is hard, up before the sun rises, 
working all day just to make ends meet. Between the cycle of plowing, 
planting, and harvesting, there are tractors to fix, barns to repair, 
and products to bring to market. The last thing any Montana farmer 
needs is another Federal mandate to follow, more red tape to cut 
through, and more Federal paperwork to fill out.
  This country was founded by farmers. They understood from personal 
experience that farming is a full-time job and you can't do it right if 
you only do it part of the time. So the Framers of the Constitution set 
up a representative government that lets farmers elect men and women to 
fight on their behalf so they can go about their business.
  The House of Representatives was meant to be the closest to the 
people. It's not just our privilege to stand up for our Constitution; 
it's our constitutional duty.
  The Constitution delegates legislative power to the Congress, but 
lately, President Obama has, in too many

[[Page 8147]]

cases, tried to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers. 
Congress managed to prevent the disastrous cap-and-trade energy tax 
from becoming law, so President Obama expanded the definition of a 
harmful pollutant in the Clean Air Act to include carbon dioxide, the 
stuff that we exhale.
  Congress blocked the massive legislation landgrabs like the Northern 
Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, so the Obama administration crafts 
secret plans to designate 13 million acres as national monuments using 
the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act, by the way, was passed to 
protect archaeological sites.
  And now the Obama administration is looking to expand its reach, over 
the objections of both the Congress and the Supreme Court, to control 
water, all water everywhere.
  You know, if there's one resource that's more important to dryland 
farmers than time, it's water. And in arid States like Montana, where 
we've got plenty of land, there's lots of dirt between light bulbs. The 
difference between feast and famine can be a little bit of water. And 
now some folks in the Federal Government want to get involved.
  It's been a long fight. Let me show you how we got there.
  Back in 2001 and 2003, the Supreme Court limited the authority of the 
Federal Government to regulate water. Unelected bureaucrats were trying 
to control water, all water, including melted snow, mud puddles and 
prairie potholes and irrigation ditches. But the Supreme Court said no.
  This makes sense. There is a role for the Federal Government. We want 
clean water and a safe environment. But living in Montana means you 
live off the land. It means you grew up learning how to take care of 
your environment. In fact, Montanans were some of the first 
conservationists. But the role of government is not unlimited. We don't 
need the Federal Government thinking for us, and we don't need the 
Federal Government to tell us how to take care of our irrigation 
ditches.
  The Clean Water Act gives the Federal Government authority to 
regulate navigable waters of the United States. President Obama and his 
allies in Congress are trying to eliminate the requirement that 
waterways be navigable. Simply eliminating that word gives the Federal 
Government nearly unlimited power. Fortunately, those legislative 
efforts have failed.
  So in December 2010, the Corps of Engineers crafted a plan to 
identify water subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The 
goal is to significantly expand Federal jurisdiction over water. The 
Obama administration and his allies are trying to solve a problem that 
does not exist.
  Fortunately, the Constitution provides a check to the Obama 
administration's power grab. Montana farmers have a safety net--the 
House of Representatives. It's our job to fight this battle so that 
they don't have to. It's our job to act as a check and balance to over-
reaching executive actions.
  That's what this language does. It simply prevents the President from 
carrying out his plans. It ensures that when a farmer wakes up before 
the sun rises, they don't have to worry about onerous Federal 
regulation. They can just go to work on their farm. That's what the 
Founding Fathers would have wanted, and that's why I hope you'll join 
me in opposing this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. I want to begin by expressing great respect and 
affection for my friend from Montana who has just spoken. It was a fine 
speech, but it has nothing to do with the issues before us.
  What the committee, in this legislation, has done has been to simply 
assure that the Corps of Engineers may not put forth guidelines 
clarifying the law as it was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the 
case that we are discussing in connection with the Clean Water Act.
  It does something more. It fixes it so that farmers will lose certain 
protections which have been put in for their benefit by the law. And 
you're going to find, as my friend from Maryland has so wisely 
observed, that you are going to hurt a bunch of American farming public 
by denying them a protection which has been given them. Citizens, under 
the language of the committee bill, will have no way of knowing what 
the law is or how it is interpreted by the committee.
  It is not an issue before us today whether or not you agree with the 
Clean Water Act. The question is, simply: Is the Corps of Engineers 
going to be able to tell people what the law is and how it is to be 
interpreted by the Corps and how citizens will then have to behave?

                              {time}  1010

  Under the law, the amendment simply says the Corps may inform people 
of what the law, as set forth in the Supreme Court's rulings, means. I 
think that is something which is important in terms of seeing to it 
that people may go forward with their planning, with economic 
development and everything of that sort.
  It is not wise to deny citizens this kind of information. It is 
extremely unwise to deny business the opportunity to know what it is 
they must do to comply with the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court. 
The amendment makes great sense. The bill, as written, simply re-fights 
an issue that is not before this body at this time. I hate to see the 
kind of confusion that is being inflicted upon this body by a simple 
misunderstanding of what the law is, what the bill does, and what the 
amendment does.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. If you want clarity, 
if you want people to know how to comply with the law as set forth by 
the Supreme Court, adopt the amendment. If you want confusion and if 
you want misfortune to be visited on farmers and the public and 
confusion to afflict economic development and business, then support 
the bill as it is and oppose the amendment.
  There is a tremendous lack of wisdom here in this fight. Let us 
understand the issue that plagues us, which is simply whether or not 
the Corps of Engineers is going to be able to tell people what the law 
is. At issue is not any change in the law. The amendment accepts the 
fact that the Supreme Court has made a decision. I happen to strongly 
disagree with that decision by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I am 
going to have to wait until some future time to come down and attack 
what is clear misbehavior by the Supreme Court. I was on the floor and 
had a colloquy with the management of the legislation at the time the 
bill was passed, and the Supreme Court has clearly disregarded and 
ignored the legislative history and, worse than that, the clear 
language of the bill. That issue is not before us today.
  What is before us today is simply: Are the Corps of Engineers and the 
U.S. Government going to be able to tell the people what the law is as 
set forth by the Supreme Court?
  To say anything else about this legislation is either to be misled or 
to mislead. I would beg my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
intelligent approach of seeing to it that we are going to allow people 
to know what the law is and allow the Corps of Engineers to set out 
what the law is for the benefit of business, industry, and people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Moran-Dingell amendment which 
will protect not only the Clean Water Act but also the power and 
integrity of the United States Congress.
  When the Clean Water Act was passed, I stood on the floor of this 
House as one of its authors and explained the intent of the Conference 
Report on the Clean Water Act in a colloquy with Representative Jim 
Wright of Texas, who was managing the bill. I said, ``the conference 
bill defines the term `navigable waters' broadly for water quality 
purposes. It means all `the waters of the United States' in a 
geographical sense. It does not mean the `navigable waters of the 
United States' in the technical sense as we sometimes see in some 
laws.''
  In 2006, the Supreme Court significantly restricted the original 
Congressional intent of the Federal government's authority under the

[[Page 8148]]

Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court completely ignored Congress' intent 
to provide a broader definition of ``U.S. waters'' and instead upended 
35 years of precedence simply because they refused to properly review 
the legislative history of laws made on this floor by those managing 
the bill.
  Because of the Supreme Court's misguided decision, the Army Corps of 
Engineers is working on new guidelines that will take into account the 
decision of the Court and define what their new jurisdiction will be 
under the Clean Water Act. This is not a massive expansion of power by 
the Corps as some would have the House believe. This is simply an 
honest attempt to comply with the Supreme Court's decision.
  By preventing the Corps from spending any funds to implement these 
new guidelines, this House would be casting a dark pall of uncertainty 
over the country. If someone wants to build a home or new business near 
a wetland or other body of water, do they need to consult with the Army 
Corps of Engineers before doing so? The language in this bill would not 
answer that question and would lead to more costs and confusion to that 
homeowner or businessperson in legal and court fees. The language in 
this bill would lead to more court battles and create a wonderful mess 
that would lead to lawyers making plenty of money.
  I ask my colleagues to not let the Supreme Court blatantly ignore 
established Congressional intent and to instead allow the Army Corps of 
Engineers to do the work we told them to do and to implement new 
guidelines conforming to the court's decision.
  Please vote for the Moran-Dingell Amendment.
  Mr. GIBBS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle are absolutely right in 
that, currently, there is an assault going on with regard to the Clean 
Water Act; but it is not by us, rather by this administration. We are 
not trying to roll back the Clean Water Act but, instead, allow it to 
work as it was written.
  This administration is currently trying to circumvent congressional 
intent and expand the scope of the law beyond its drafted words. This 
guidance would substantially change the agency's policy on waters 
subject to the jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, undermine the 
regulatory community's rights and obligations under the Clean Water 
Act, and erode the Federal-State partnership that has long existed 
between the States and the Federal Government in implementing the Clean 
Water Act.
  By developing this guidance, the agencies have ignored calls from 
State agencies and environmental groups, among others, to proceed 
through the normal rulemaking procedures; and they have avoided 
consulting with the States, which are supposed to be the agencies 
partnering in and implementing the Clean Water Act. The agencies cannot 
circumvent the Administrative Procedure Act through this guidance or 
change the scope and meaning of the Clean Water Act or the statute's 
implementing regulations.
  If the administration and the Members on the other side of the aisle 
seek statutory changes in the Clean Water Act, then a proposal must be 
submitted here in Congress for legislative action, and we should have a 
healthy debate. Until that time, we must stop this current process.
  Also, I would like to add to the gentleman's earlier comments in that 
I think the intent of the Clean Water Act passed constitutional muster 
because of the word ``navigable'' in the Interstate Commerce Clause. 
This guidance put out essentially circumvents the word ``navigable,'' 
so I have to raise a question of the constitutionality of this type of 
amendment.
  I urge strong opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague Mr. 
Moran's amendment to strike this rider in the fiscal year 2013 Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Act. For 40 years, the Clean Water 
Act has helped remove pollution from our drinking water and protect our 
precious natural resources.
  The act regulates the discharge of pollution into navigable waters; 
but put simply, it makes sure that a glass of water you get from the 
tap or the fish you catch in any fishing hole or river isn't 
contaminated by pollutants. Now, some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle forget that, before the Clean Water Act was passed, 
rivers caught on fire; oil spills in inland waters were rampant; and 
few communities had modern wastewater treatment facilities.
  The ill-conceived rider in this bill would have a severe impact on my 
home State of Maryland. In fact, the EPA estimates that 55 percent of 
the streams in Maryland either do not flow year-round or are ``first 
order'' headwater streams. These are waters most vulnerable to 
pollution or destruction if the Army Corps and EPA are not able to 
adopt policies to restore the longstanding protections for these 
waters. Without these protections, sewage and industrial waste 
discharges, oil spills and completely filling in streams for 
development may not be subject to Federal law even when streams provide 
drinking water, as they do in the Fourth Congressional District of 
Maryland.
  The EPA says that 3,990,016 people in Maryland receive some of their 
drinking water from areas containing these smaller streams. In 
Montgomery County alone, 1,846,500 residents are at risk of having 
their drinking water polluted. These residents use surface water 
supplied by public drinking water systems that rely on smaller streams 
that are at risk of losing clean water protections. Also, many waters 
in Maryland, from small streams to the Chesapeake Bay, are interstate 
waters. Without strong Federal safeguards for waters of the United 
States, those States that want to or are able to take State-level steps 
to protect waters will be unsuccessful.
  Even with the Clean Water Act, the Potomac River--I live on the banks 
of the Potomac River--is listed as the most endangered river by the 
group American Rivers as part of their America's Most Endangered Rivers 
of 2012. The river receives this inauspicious award because it's 
polluted by agriculture runoff, sewage runoff from roadways and from 
enough pharmaceuticals that male fish have been caught with female 
characteristics. The Anacostia River, which also flows through my 
district, is polluted by trash, sewage, and other contaminants. A 
cleanup of the Anacostia is slowly taking place due in no small part to 
the guidance provided under the Clean Water Act. Urban rivers like the 
Potomac and Anacostia are affected by runoff from streets and parking 
structures.
  I want to pause here for a minute because all of us here in this 
Capitol receive our water, our tap water and our drinking water, from 
those waters that I am talking about, from the Anacostia and the 
Potomac. So keep that in mind, Members of Congress, when you're 
drinking a glass of water.
  It's one of the many reasons that I favor public transportation, 
transit-oriented development, and bike riding. Our air and water are 
protected when we make smart transportation decisions, and I have to 
say that we haven't made a single smart transportation and jobs 
decision in this Congress since the Republicans took over. This is why 
I support a bipartisan and Senate-passed MAP-21 and hope that the 
conferees agree to a report that reflects the priorities in that bill, 
because that's about protecting our drinking water.
  So let's be clear about what's at stake. The Clean Water Act protects 
almost 60 percent of U.S. streams, and that's why 33 States joined a 
brief in the most recent Supreme Court case on the issue urging the 
Court to uphold Federal protections for wetlands adjacent to non-
navigable tributaries.

                              {time}  1020

  These States noted that Federal safeguards were critical because 
water

[[Page 8149]]

flows between States, because maintaining a Federal floor of pollution 
control creates parity among States, and because States have come to 
rely on Federal protections and would face significant administrative 
and financial burdens if they were solely responsible for these 
requirements. Now the success of the Clean Water Act is being 
threatened by a dirty-water rider attached to the FY 2013 Energy and 
Water appropriations bill.
  I hope you'll join with me and millions of people across the country 
to stand up for clean water, for safe drinking water, for the health of 
fishermen, and for fish and wildlife. Future generations will not 
remember the industries we've made slightly wealthier by rolling back 
this bipartisan passed bill, but our future generations will know that 
we are the reason their drinking water is making them sick.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Moran-Dingell amendment and to 
strike this dangerous and reckless rider.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chair, I have to rise in strong opposition to my 
friend's amendment.
  Today, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers are writing guidance in 
order to dramatically expand the reach of the Clean Water Act and the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The EPA and Corps' understanding 
of waters of the United States would grow to encompass--in my rural 
district and a lot of rural districts all over this country--dry 
ditches, culverts, and--who knows--swimming pools and snow, as well.
  This guidance is called ``Identification of Waters Protected by the 
Clean Water Act,'' and it's clear that the draft guidance, which has 
already been published, says it is not a rule and it is not binding. 
But let me tell you what's happened in my congressional district. 
Number one, this guidance is actually causing already the Corps of 
Engineers to fine a couple of people in my congressional district who 
supposedly have dry ditches on their property, and they are about 10 
different streams removed from the Mississippi River, perhaps. Only 
when it rains does it stay wet for a day. These people are being told 
that they're going to have to pay hefty fines unless they stop the 
development of this particular area on their land. This is absolutely 
the craziest thing I've ever heard. Nobody is talking about impacting 
your clean water. This is out in the country. This is in rural areas. 
This is where there hasn't been a stream running in 100 years. Why that 
would be called a navigable water is beyond me.
  The language included in the underlying bill is just simply going to 
stop the Corps, along with the EPA, from expanding their regulatory 
reach. And as I said, it's going to drastically be expanded to include 
culverts, dry ditches, and the rain falling on our fields. God knows 
there's going to be a mud puddle there, and it's suddenly going to 
become a navigable water because you might be able to put somebody with 
an inner tube in there in the puddle in the yard to be able to swim 
until it dries up.
  Come on. Let's use sound science. Let's use some common sense. Let's 
follow proper rulemaking. The last thing we need to do is to continue 
to increase the power of the Federal Government. And this amendment 
under consideration--and I love my colleagues who are offering it--
would further empower the regulatory agencies, and it would endanger 
more than anything else our private property rights.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support private property rights 
and join me in demanding transparency and accountability of our 
regulatory agencies. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat this 
amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Moran's 
amendment and would point out that I think the gentleman from Michigan 
in his earlier remarks hit the nail on the head. This is an issue of 
clarity versus confusion.
  The fact is we have become the ``Congress of Confusion.'' We are 
charged with running a Nation of 300 million people with domestic and 
international responsibilities. We have now confused the physician 
community of the United States more than 17 times--sometimes at a 2-
week interval--as to what the reimbursements are going to be under the 
Medicare program. We have people who have suffered loss of life, 
significant property damage, and dislocation through floods in our 
Nation. We are unable as an institution to resolve our differences on 
flood insurance and have continued it--if I am correct--at least 11 
times. The fact is we have an infrastructure, as far as our highways 
and bridges, that is crumbling. We have now eight or nine times 
continued that because we cannot make a decision, and we continue to 
confuse the States, contractors, and our communities as to what the 
policy of the United States Government is going to be. And depending on 
what year you died, the last four years--including 2012--this Nation 
has had three different estate-tax laws, and the current one expires at 
the end of this year, leading to confusion and the hiring of numerous 
accountants, insurance agents, and attorneys, all of whom I love.
  Why confuse this Nation more by not adopting the clarity of the Moran 
amendment? There is no question that the two Supreme Court decisions 
have significantly confused this issue and created uncertainty as to 
the scope of the Clean Water Act. During multiple hearings before the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, witness after witness 
spoke of how these cases have blurred the lines on what the waters 
subject to Federal protection are.
  The reason in short is because in neither case could the majority of 
Supreme Court justices agree on what was the appropriate test for 
determining the scope of Federal protections based on their reading of 
the term ``navigable.'' No majority or the court could agree what 
navigable means. In fact, in one of the cases the level of confusion on 
the court is reflected in that there are five separate opinions filed 
in the case with no opinion having more than four supporters on the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  The resulting confusion in interpreting the Clean Water Act is 
apparent to both the regulated community and regulators. The fact is, 
the industry has asked for clarification of this confusion through 
agency rulemaking. The gentlewoman mentioned that we need a rule in 
this. We do need a clarified rule. However, this legislative rider that 
is in the bill proposes the status quo of confusion and that that is 
acceptable. It will only result in increased implementation costs to 
the Federal Government, to the States, and to the regulated community. 
It will increase delays in the implementation of important public works 
projects and protracted litigation on the disparity of this language.
  We need to adopt Mr. Moran's amendment to ensure that we have 
clarity. We should be taking actions to address the legitimate concerns 
that have been expressed. But the fact is this is an issue that 
Congress and the administration needs to address in the authorizing 
process to clarify it. This is not an issue that should be continued in 
confusion and perpetuity through the appropriations process.
  Again, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and 
urge my colleagues to support a clarification of the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. Chairman, Republican administrators of the EPA--from William

[[Page 8150]]

Reilly to Russell Train--have all expressed support for protecting our 
streams, rivers, wetlands, lakes, and other waters of the United States 
from pollution and from destruction. The rider in this bill will 
perpetuate the current confusing and cumbersome bureaucratic situation.

                              {time}  1030

  I would suggest it's time to take a step forward, not take a step 
backward, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rider and to support 
the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I received a letter from the American Fisheries Society, 
the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, the Sportfishing 
Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. I think these are very 
important groups. As a westerner, I pay attention to these people. It 
says:
                                                   March 30, 2012.
       Dear Representative: As sportsman-conservation 
     organizations representing millions of hunters, boaters, and 
     anglers nationwide, we ask you to oppose any legislation that 
     would block the administration's very deliberate and vital 
     action to clarify and restore long-standing Clean Water Act 
     protections for streams and wetlands across the country. We 
     reaffirm our support for Clean Water Act guidance currently 
     being reviewed and finalized in an interagency process 
     coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
       Sportsmen rely on clean water to ensure the opportunity to 
     enjoy hunting, angling, and other outdoor-based recreation 
     (and business) in the great outdoors. When wetlands are 
     drained and filled and streams are polluted, sportsmen are 
     often the first to be directly impacted. Consequently, 
     hunters, boaters, and anglers have consistently advocated for 
     conserving our nation's waters.
       Since 2001, U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC (2001) 
     and Rapanos (2006), along with 2003 and 2008 agency guidance 
     that is inconsistent with those decisions and the related 
     science, have combined to erode long-standing Clean Water Act 
     safeguards for headwater streams and critical wetlands.
       Headwater and intermittently flowing streams comprise 59 
     percent of all stream miles in the continental United States, 
     and are particularly vulnerable under the decisions and 
     existing agency guidance. At-risk wetlands and tributaries 
     provide clean water for iconic systems such as the 
     Mississippi River Delta and the Chesapeake Bay. They recharge 
     aquifers like the Ogallala, help retain floodwaters in areas 
     such as the Prairie Pothole region and Missouri River Basin, 
     and provide important fish and wildlife habitat throughout 
     the nation. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
     (FWS), prairie pothole wetlands in the northern Great Plains, 
     together with similar wetlands in southern Canada, produce 50 
     to 70 percent of all North American ducks. However, in its 
     most recent report on the status of wetlands nationwide, the 
     FWS found the rate of wetland loss jumped 140 percent between 
     2004 and 2009. As these waters are polluted and diminished, 
     their ecological, public health, and recreational benefits 
     are lost, as well.
       As we all work to create jobs and support economic 
     recovery, we should nurture rather than neglect the economic 
     benefits of hunting, angling, and other outdoor recreation. 
     Hunting, boating, and angling have a tremendously positive 
     impact on the nation's economy, including in rural 
     communities, and support millions of jobs across the country. 
     Consider the following:

     Using data from the FWS, the American Sportfishing 
     Association estimates angling generates $125 billion in 
     annual economic activity and supports more than 1 million 
     jobs.

     Using similar information, the Congressional Sportsmen's 
     Foundation estimates hunters contribute nearly $25 billion to 
     the economy, which supports 600,000 jobs.

     Data from the National Marine Manufacturers Association 
     indicates that recreational boating contributes over $41 
     billion and 337,000 jobs to the U.S. economy.

     The FWS reports duck hunting alone generates $2.3 billion for 
     the economy every year and supports 27,000 private sector 
     jobs.

       In order to effectively safeguard key components of our 
     economy, the sports and traditions that millions of Americans 
     enjoy, and the health and integrity of some of our most 
     important fish and wildlife resources, it is essential to act 
     now to restore lost Clean Water Act protections consistent 
     with existing law and science.
       The Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) proposed new guidance last spring for 
     determining Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The draft guidance 
     is science-based and clearly respects the Supreme Court's 
     decisions. Over the course of three months last summer, the 
     agencies conducted an almost unprecedented public engagement 
     process for a guidance document. More than 200,000 Americans 
     commented and EPA has reported that the clear majority of 
     those comments support the proposed guidance. During this 
     process, more than 250 hunting, angling, and conservation 
     groups from 28 states also weighed in backing the guidance 
     and subsequent rulemaking.
       To complete this process the guidance must be finalized as 
     a first step in affirming longstanding clean water 
     protections for many wetlands and streams. This guidance 
     importantly maintains existing exemptions for normal 
     agricultural activity. At the same time, it will provide 
     increased clarity and consistency that is badly needed by 
     land owners, developers, conservationists, and state and 
     federal agencies alike. We urge you to support--and not 
     oppose--this important first step.
       As a follow-up to final guidance, we also support agency 
     action to further clarify and strengthen the regulatory 
     definition of ``waters of the United States.'' There is 
     widespread agreement among groups across the spectrum about 
     the inherent value of rulemaking to address critical aspects 
     of this issue. In closing, we urge you to support--and not 
     oppose--the important and careful steps being taken by the 
     administration to clarify and affirm long-standing 
     protections for wetlands and streams across the United 
     States.
           Respectfully,
         Gus Rassam, Executive Director, American Fisheries 
           Society; Randi Swisher, President, American Fly Fishing 
           Trade Association; Gordon Robertson, Vice President, 
           Government Affairs, American Sportfishing Association; 
           Jim Akenson, Executive Director, Backcountry Hunters 
           and Anglers; Bruce Akin, Chief Executive Officer, BASS, 
           LLC.; Jim Martin, Conservation Director, Berkley 
           Conservation Institute; Rob Olson, President, Delta 
           Waterfowl; David Hoskins, Executive Director, Izaak 
           Walton League of America; Thom Dammrich, President, 
           National Marine Manufacturers Association; Larry 
           Schweiger, President and CEO, National Wildlife 
           Federation; Paul Krausman, CWD, President, The Wildlife 
           Society; Whit Fosburgh, President and CEO, Theodore 
           Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; Chris Wood, 
           President, Trout Unlimited; Steve Williams, President, 
           Wildlife Management Institute.

  So that's why we must today enact the Moran amendment that takes out 
the language unfortunately added in full committee on this subject. It 
is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. From an 
environmental perspective and from a hunter, fisherman, outdoor 
recreational perspective, it's necessary to protect our future.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last world.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman for his recognition. I don't have 
the letter to read, but listen, the only argument that's being made 
here that makes any sense is we have got to bring clarity to this 
issue. We have got to bring clarity to the confusion of this issue.
  Well, I will tell you that a hanging is clarity, but it's not 
necessarily the right option. That's essentially what we're doing here. 
We're giving control of all these waters that have traditionally been 
in the control of the States to the Federal Government. And I will tell 
you, we will have an opportunity to debate this same issue again on the 
Interior bill dealing with the EPA. This deals with the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  The fact is is that you don't need this to clarify this, the policies 
proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. You can clarify it by 
legislatively defining what ``navigable'' means. If the Supreme Court 
has a problem trying to decide what ``navigable'' means, then let's 
address that so we know what we intend by that.
  The argument is made repeatedly by some of those that have supported 
this amendment, whether you are from Virginia or Maryland, and I will 
tell you, if you want in Virginia or Maryland or Washington or 
Michigan, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to control every drop 
of water that falls on your State, I'll help you do it. Let's write 
legislation to do that so that you guys can have the clarity of the EPA 
and the Army Corps of Engineers. But in western States, we actually 
protect those waters by State law. What you are trying to do is exempt 
State law or override State law and have the Federal Government take 
control of these. That's just flat wrong.

[[Page 8151]]

  If you don't think Virginia protects its headwaters enough, then put 
a bill in to allow the EPA and the Army Corps to control every drop of 
water that falls in the State of Virginia. You don't need this to bring 
clarity to this, and the States are doing a good job that do State 
regulations of headwaters.
  Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MORAN. I would like to ask the gentleman what we do about waters 
that are interstate, they flow down.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Well, let me answer that question for you.
  Mr. MORAN. Yes, please.
  Mr. SIMPSON. If there are waters that the State is not regulating and 
they will eventually flow into navigable waters, and the only way to 
control the pollution in those navigable waters--the State is going to 
ultimately start controlling those headwaters if they're not doing 
their jobs.
  You seem to think that States have no ability to control the State 
waters that are under State control. They do have the ability to 
control those State waters, and they do a good job of it in most 
States. I'm not sure about Virginia. I haven't followed Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. But I suggest to the gentleman, they use the Federal 
definition in order to enforce the quality of the water coming from 
other States. That's the problem.
  Mr. SIMPSON. The point is that they become navigable waters at some 
point. If they are being polluted by waters that are controlled by the 
States, eventually the State is going to have to say, You know what, we 
have got to get control of this; otherwise, we're going to have 
problems downstream.
  Mr. MORAN. How do they control water from another State?
  Mr. SIMPSON. You seem to think that the only way to address this 
problem is to have a Federal bureaucracy. You know what, we could bring 
clarity to all of our problems by just eliminating the States. Why have 
States? Why not have everything under Federal control? That makes 
sense, because everything goes from State to State eventually. It makes 
no sense to me.
  This does not bring clarity to the situation and it does not help in 
the regulation of our Clean Water Act. This does not make the waters of 
the United States cleaner. All it does is give more authority to the 
Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.

                              {time}  1040

  If you want to bring clarity, then bring a bill down here to define 
what navigable means. And you can do that. As I said, a hanging is 
clarity--not necessarily the best outcome.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Moran Amendment.
  The streams, lakes, and wetlands of America are in desperate need of 
protection. These areas provide citizens with clean drinking water, are 
essential to sports and recreation, and, importantly to my district in 
St. Louis, protect cities from floods. The Army Corps of Engineers, and 
the Environmental Protection Agency developed a guidance plan this past 
summer to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, the 
paramount piece of legislation protecting these important areas. This 
guidance will confirm the water protections we depend on to keep our 
water safe. Thus, I support the Moran Amendment which would eliminate 
Section 110. Section 110 prevents the Corps from doing a critical part 
of its job: maintaining our country's significant water resources.
  The Corps has already proposed guidance that would significantly 
clarify the Clean Water Act and ensure the safety of American 
waterways. Without these clarifications, 20 million acres of wetlands 
will continue to be left without legal protections. The American public 
depends on this Act for clean drinking water, protection from flood 
waters, and maintaining the habitats of important wildlife. The 
American public depends on us to support the Corps and place safeguards 
to keep our water clean. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the 
Moran Amendment and not prevent the Army Corp of Engineers from doing 
their job. We must allow the Army Corps of Engineers to clarify the 
scope of the Clean Water Act, so that Americans can trust their 
waterways are clean.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 111.  As of the date of enactment of this Act and 
     thereafter, the Secretary of the Army shall not promulgate or 
     enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from 
     possessing a firearm, including an assembled or functional 
     firearm, at a water resources development project covered 
     under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), if--
       (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from 
     possessing the firearm; and
       (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the 
     law of the State in which the water resources development 
     project is located.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                central utah project completion account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, $19,700,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $1,200,000 shall be deposited into 
     the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for 
     use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission. In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in 
     carrying out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, $1,300,000.
       For fiscal year 2013, the Commission may use an amount not 
     to exceed $1,500,000 for administrative expenses.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

       The following appropriations shall be expended to execute 
     authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:

                      water and related resources

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, and others, $833,635,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $29,000 shall be available for transfer to 
     the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $6,985,000 shall be 
     available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin 
     Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary 
     may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided, 
     That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the 
     overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further, 
     That of the total appropriated, the amount for program 
     activities that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or 
     the Bureau of Reclamation special fee account established by 
     16 U.S.C. 6806 shall be derived from that Fund or account: 
     Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 
     are available until expended for the purposes for which 
     contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under 43 
     U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and are 
     available until expended for the same purposes as the sums 
     appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That of 
     the amounts provided herein, funds may be used for high 
     priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth 
     Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.

                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $39,883,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of 
     Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount 
     of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water 
     for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to 
     in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.

                    california bay-delta restoration

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply, 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent 
     with

[[Page 8152]]

     plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     $36,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities 
     may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other 
     participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized 
     purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be 
     used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program 
     management: Provided further, That the use of any funds 
     provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for program-
     wide management and oversight activities shall be subject to 
     the approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided 
     further, That CALFED implementation shall be carried out in a 
     balanced manner with clear performance measures demonstrating 
     concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of 
     the Program.

                       policy and administration

       For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2014, 
     $57,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That 
     no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and 
     administration expenses.

                        administrative provision

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be 
     available for purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor 
     vehicles, which are for replacement only.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in this title 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
       (4) restarts or resumes any program, project or activity 
     for which funds are not provided in this Act, unless prior 
     approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate;
       (5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits--
       (A) 15 percent for any program, project or activity for 
     which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year; or
       (B) $300,000 for any program, project or activity for which 
     less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year;
       (6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities 
     Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the 
     Resources Management and Development category to any program, 
     project, or activity in the other category; or
       (7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal 
     obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than 
     $5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor 
     claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated 
     rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
       (b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of 
     funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and 
     Rehabilitation category.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer'' 
     means any movement of funds into or out of a program, 
     project, or activity.
       (d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the 
     funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or 
     categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to determine the final 
     point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis 
     Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the 
     water quality standards of the State of California as 
     approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis 
     drainage waters.
       (b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program 
     and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
     shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan'' 
     described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department 
     of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future 
     obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or 
     providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the 
     San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit 
     beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal 
     reclamation law.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,450,960,000 to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of such 
     amount, $115,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2014, for program direction: Provided further, That for the 
     purposes of allocating weatherization assistance funds to 
     States and tribes during fiscal year 2013, the Secretary of 
     Energy may waive the allocation formula established pursuant 
     to section 414(a) of the Energy Conservation and Production 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6864(a)): Provided further, That of the 
     unobligated balances from prior year appropriations available 
     under this heading, $69,667,000 is hereby permanently 
     rescinded: Provided further, That no amounts may be rescinded 
     from amounts that were designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution 
     on the Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise today to offer an amendment that takes another 
step toward restoring energy independence for America and new jobs for 
Americans. My amendment shifts an additional $10 million for energy 
efficiency and renewable energy development from departmental 
administrative accounts. My goal is to better support a diversified 
energy portfolio and restore continental energy security.
  American security and competitiveness hinge on affordable energy for 
our businesses and families, and our energy future depends on 
innovation. Fossil fuels continue to provide the bulk of our energy 
needs, and those accounts are left intact in this bill. But we all 
should know that a diversified energy portfolio protects America from 
the instability of a single source of energy dependence.
  Our future security depends on diversified energy research and 
development that provides significant return on investment both 
financially and in technological advancement and the jobs that go with 
it. We must ensure that American innovators are on a level playing 
field with competitors across the globe, including China, and even 
Russia, and other nations looking for a competitive edge.
  For years, the United States has been the global leader in these 
technologies, but we now are losing edge. Investment in energy 
efficiency and renewable energy technologies are absolutely essential 
in securing America's future.
  Now, I understand the difficulty in drafting this bill, given the 
302(b) allocation and the cuts for energy and water that the 
subcommittee endured. And I appreciate Chairman Frelinghuysen and 
Ranking Member Visclosky's dedication to making difficult choices in a 
tight budget climate. Yet for fiscal 2013, critical energy research 
accounts have been drastically reduced to $1.38 billion that actually 
exacted a $428 million cut below fiscal year 2012.
  Compared to last year, for example, solar energy was cut nearly in 
half--to $155 million--and wind energy, the fastest energy sector 
growing globally, was cut by one-quarter, to $70 million for R&D. Other 
programs like geothermal, water power, and building energy technologies 
received similar large cuts.
  Last year, this body came together in a bipartisan fashion to support 
a modest increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy 
technologies; and faced with further cuts this year, I ask my 
colleagues to reaffirm that commitment to a diversified energy policy 
and lead our country, and indeed the world, toward a new energy age. In

[[Page 8153]]

fact, this amendment increases funds for the renewable portion of our 
energy portfolio while maintaining the proposed increases for fossil 
fuel development. And from a budgetary and accounting standpoint, my 
amendment actually decreases outlays for fiscal year 2013.
  Let me add, this $10 million transfer we are proposing represents 
less than 
1/20th of the $230 million administrative budget of the Department of 
Energy. This is a prudent adjustment to our energy policy strategy. It 
is forward looking. It makes sense from a budgetary standpoint. It will 
spur new job creation. And I urge my colleagues' support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I 
appreciate my colleague's passion for solar energy. She has been a 
tireless supporter of American innovation in this energy and 
technological area. I also have the pleasure of serving with her on the 
Defense Appropriations Committee, and she's been an innovator and 
promoter of responsible energy policy with the Department of Defense as 
well.
  But within tight budgets, we need to focus funding on our highest 
priorities, which is what we've done in our Energy and Water bill. To 
make room for our national security and infrastructure responsibility, 
our bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by $428 million 
and reprioritizes funds within the program to support American 
manufacturing and address rising gas prices. The focus is on jobs, the 
economy, and American manufacturing.
  Our bill also preserves $155 million for solar energy research that 
continues to advance American manufacturing and helps our companies 
compete globally. While I support activities that help American 
manufacturers compete, we cannot afford to add unnecessary funds to 
solar energy by cutting other important priorities.
  Indeed, the amendment would cut departmental administration, a cut 
that we all know simply cannot be sustained in the final appropriation 
without jeopardizing the Department of Energy's ability to run and 
oversee their operation. They have enough management problems now. 
Reducing that management amount would make it difficult for them to run 
and oversee the problems that they really need to oversee.
  So this amendment uses money we simply do not have. It has perhaps 
the effect of crippling management by the Department. We need to live 
within our means. And I, regretfully, oppose the gentlewoman's 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentlewoman's amendment. There is $10 million contained in her 
amendment. That is a significant sum of money. When compared, however, 
to current year level spending for the renewable accounts of $1.825 
billion, and as the chairman rightfully pointed out, a reduction of 
$428 million from that account, the gentlewoman's amendment is as much 
a statement of Congress as it is a monetary initiative. That is, we 
need to make an investment in our energy future as well as our economic 
future.
  Renewable energy must be a part of that future, and the vast majority 
of industries in our country throughout our history have received 
substantial support from the government to become established and to be 
part of this great Nation.
  This amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio takes a very 
small, but very positive, step towards making that investment, and I do 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment; and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment 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. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will 
be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hultgren

  Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would transfer $15 million 
from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy research program to the 
Office of Science. It would also reduce the EERE account by an 
additional $15 million, which could be put towards deficit reduction.
  The Obama administration has consistently prioritized industrial 
policy, under the guise of applied science, at the cost of reduced 
support for our Nation's critical basic science research and our 
national labs.
  EERE's Advanced Manufacturing Office is $35 million above current 
fiscal year 2012 levels. EERE's water technologies program is $25 
million above the President's budget request. EERE's vehicle 
technologies program is $42 million above where it was just last year. 
EERE's solar technology program receives $155 million, despite billions 
of dollars of recent loan guarantees to solar companies and several 
high-profile industry failures.
  This amendment would remove $15 million from the EERE account, which 
is spent on subsidizing solar power and wind energy, and move it back 
to the Office of Science, where I would hope report language could 
specifically target it for the high-energy physics program which is 
critical to our long-term economic success and scientific leadership.
  At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. 
Noem).
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for yielding to me, and I appreciate working with him on this 
important amendment.
  This amendment would increase funding for the Office of Science by 
$15 million while cutting an additional $15 million from the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Chair, the field of high-energy physics is becoming increasingly 
competitive; and without critical deep underground research spaces, we 
will continue to put our historic leadership in this area at risk, 
while continuing to send our best and brightest overseas to conduct 
their research.
  But we can compete. Just this week in my State of South Dakota, the 
Sanford Underground Research Facility dedicated the Davis campus--4,850 
feet underground. Later this year, this campus is scheduled to hold a 
dark matter detector that after only 4 days of operation stands to add 
more to our knowledge than all previous dark matter research 
experiments. We're not talking about subsidies and giveaways for ideas 
that are years or decades down the road. This is cutting-edge science 
that's within our grasp.
  We need to make tough choices in our current budget situation, but we 
also need to recognize the role that U.S. research plays in our ability 
to compete and to innovate. So I urge my colleagues to support our 
ability to lead the world in underground science in a fiscally 
responsible way, and I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. HULTGREN. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this 
amendment. It does make sense. It's a commitment to basic scientific 
research and fiscal accountability, and I urge support of the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 8154]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to oppose 
the amendment. I do recognize the passion of the Members of Congress 
from Illinois and South Dakota who have spoken, and I may say 
repeatedly spoken and advocated to me over the last couple of months on 
behalf of the high-energy physics program and national laboratories in 
their congressional districts and, in fact, all relevant national 
laboratories that play a critical role in maintaining our Nation's 
scientific leadership and competitiveness. So I recognize their 
advocacy, I appreciate it, and I certainly will be working with them to 
do whatever we can to be of assistance.
  We tried our very best in our bill to help those and all of the 
Department's remarkable national laboratories, but our constraints did 
not afford us the luxury of bringing more money to the table in many 
cases. Many labs wanted money, and these are remarkable labs, and they 
are deserving as well.
  We did what we could for high-energy physics by shifting $16 million 
into project engineering and design for the Long Baseline neutrino 
experiment. This allows the Department to move quickly in choosing a 
path forward for the program.
  We also ensured that the Homestake mine, which is a remarkable mine 
and a remarkable structure and a national asset, has sufficient minimal 
funding to operate while that path forward is yet to be determined.
  If more funding were available, we certainly would have brought more 
resources to bear. Unfortunately, the amendment finds resources by 
cutting a program--and we discussed this earlier--that has already been 
reduced by $428 million. That's a 24 percent reduction from fiscal year 
2012 and a 40 percent reduction below 2010.
  I recognize--the committee recognizes--the importance of these 
programs, and I promise we'll work with our colleagues as we move 
forward in the appropriations process to be supportive and helpful, but 
I must reluctantly oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I also would rise in reluctant 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment. As a resident of the 
neighboring State, I realize all of the great scientific research that 
is done in the State of Illinois alone at some of our wonderful Federal 
facilities. There is no question that we need to invest in the science 
account, as evidenced by the fact it is in this bill. Again, we had a 
very difficult allocation. Science is cut by $72,203,000.
  But, unfortunately, I do think the gentleman's amendment is 
counterproductive in that he, because of the budget rules, needs a $30 
million cut from renewable research to gain a $15 million add for 
scientific research. Given the constraints we face, I think that's a 
bad bargain and we ought to leave the $30 million right where it is and 
have that aptly applied.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,450,960,000)''.
       Page 20, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $115,000,000)''.
       Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,450,960,000)''.

                              {time}  1100

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves nearly $1.5 
billion by ending the failed Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
program.
  If we're serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have got 
to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers based on 
political connections. Instead, we need to require every energy company 
to compete on its own merit as decided by the customers it attracts by 
offering better products at lower cost.
  For too long we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can 
make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can 
make with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced the 
continuing spectacle of collapsing energy scandals epitomized by the 
Solyndra fiasco. At least Solyndra was funded from a loan program in 
which the public has a chance to get some of its money back when these 
dubious schemes go bankrupt. This program is direct spending that funds 
commercialization projects for ideologically pleasing technologies and 
the politically favored firms that make them, money that taxpayers have 
no chance of recovering after it's spent.
  This amendment and the two that I will offer soon protect taxpayers 
from being forced into being venture capitalists by incompetent 
politicians. It gets government out of the energy business and requires 
all energy companies and all energy technologies to compete equally and 
on their own merits.
  Most of the money in this program goes to wind, solar, and car 
research development subsidies. We're told that's necessary to nurture 
these new and promising technologies. Well, these technologies are not 
new and they are not promising. Photovoltaic cells, for example, were 
invented by French physicist Edmund Becquerel in 1839, and in more than 
170 years of technological research and innovation and billions of 
dollars of taxpayer subsidies we have not yet invented a more expensive 
way to produce electricity. So we hide its true costs to consumers 
through subsidies taken from their taxes.
  Nor is there any earthly reason why taxpayers should be forced to 
serve as the research and development department for General Motors or 
for any other company or technology. We're told that, well, someday 
this research might pay us back many times over. We've been told that 
for 40 years. Now, I hope someday that these empty promises will be 
redeemed, but that's still not a reason for taxpayers to foot the bill. 
It's a reason for the actual research and development to be paid for by 
the companies that will profit from this long-promised breakthrough. 
And if they're not willing to finance it with their own money, we have 
no business forcing our constituents to finance it with theirs.
  All we've accomplished with these programs is to take dollars that 
would have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising 
technologies and divert them instead to those that are politically 
favored. This misallocation of resources not only destroys jobs and 
productive ventures, it ends up minimizing our energy potential instead 
of maximizing it and destroying our wealth instead of creating it.
  Madam Chairman, voters entrusted Republicans with the House majority 
with the very specific mandate to stop wasting money. Moreover, the 
House is where spending bills must originate. The government doesn't 
spend a dollar unless the House says that it will spend a dollar.
  A day doesn't go by that we don't hear an indictment of Solyndra and 
its multiplying scandals, and yet here we have the Republican Energy 
appropriations bill that continues to shovel billions of dollars on the 
very same folly that produced Solyndra.
  Politicians love to appear at ribbon cuttings and issue self-
congratulatory press releases at government-supported ``alternative 
energy'' businesses, but they fall strangely silent when asked

[[Page 8155]]

to actually account for the billions of our dollars that they've 
wasted. Well, that day of reckoning has arrived. These policies are 
impoverishing our country. Our taxpayers are exhausted. Our treasury is 
empty. It is past time that this House majority proved worthy of the 
trust the American people gave it more than a year and a half ago.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, 
which would eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy at the Department of Energy.
  This year, the committee continued fulfilling its responsibility to 
reduce government spending by eliminating ineffective and wasteful 
programs. Our bill cuts EERE by $428 million. That's a 24 percent cut 
below fiscal year 2012, nearly 40 percent below 2010, and well below 
the 2000 level. Our bill slashes programs that are ineffective and cuts 
activities that improperly intervene in private markets.
  The committee will continue its work to reduce spending and to keep 
the government out of private enterprise where private enterprise could 
make those substantial investments themselves.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recommendation and also rise in 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and will simply state that my 
objection is based on national security concerns.
  The fact is, as the senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar has 
characterized our energy crisis for years, and I absolutely agree with 
him. The fact is the importation of petroleum products in our use of 
carbon, because of where we buy them, has created a significant 
national security issue for the United States of America.
  One of the accounts in the renewable accounts that will be eliminated 
under the gentleman's amendment is vehicle technology. There is no 
question American citizens are suffering today because of high gas 
prices. I myself--and I only speak for myself--can't do anything about 
that particular price at the pump today. But if through the vehicle 
technology program and the wise investment of the Federal taxpayers 
dollars we can get every American another mile per gallon, we have 
removed some of their economic discomfort and burden. We have also 
helped to begin to ensure our national security by reducing our 
dependency on foreign oil. Therefore, I do strongly oppose the 
gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $180,440,000)''.
       Page 30, line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $180,440,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, first I want to thank my colleagues, 
Representative Bishop, Representative Hirono, and Representative Welch, 
for offering this amendment with me.
  Madam Chair, the Tonko-Bishop-Hirono-Welch amendment is simple and 
straightforward. It increases funding for two important State energy 
efficiency programs in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
accounts at the Department of Energy.
  The amendment would increase spending for the Weatherization 
Assistance Program. Weatherization is the largest residential 
efficiency program in our Nation. Weatherization reduces energy costs 
for low-income families and the elderly and disabled. It creates jobs, 
invests in local businesses, and advances technology--state-of-the-art 
technology. Weatherizing homes under this program saves $437 in annual 
utility bills for the average homeowner. These energy savings insulate 
families from rising energy costs by permanently lowering household 
energy demand for both heating and cooling.
  Our amendment also restores funding to the State Energy Program, or 
SEP. SEP is the only cost-shared program administered by the United 
States Department of Energy that provides resources directly to the 
States to support their efforts in energy efficiency. This includes 56 
State and territory energy offices. And, according to a study by the 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for every dollar in Federal SEP funds we 
have 1.03 million source Btus, along with the cost savings of $7.22, 
and a leveraging of $10.71 on that same very dollar.
  Madam Chair, these programs traditionally have received strong 
bipartisan support. Saving money by saving energy is good--good for 
everyone.
  The bill's deep cuts in weatherization programs from recent years' 
allocations is so-called ``justified'' in the report by the claim that 
there are large amounts of unspent funds from previous appropriations, 
including those from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA.

                              {time}  1110

  Well, the majority of these funds have, in fact, been allocated, and 
I understand they will be completely spent by April 1 of next year, the 
beginning of the Weatherization Program year for States. So that means 
there will be little to nothing available by the time that FY13 funds 
get to these States.
  The ARRA money and the money from fiscal year 2011 has been obligated 
in contracts to subgrantees. In addition to the cuts in weatherization 
in this bill, the other source of Federal funds for this program, 10 
percent of LIHEAP funds, is also reduced due to the reductions in 
funding for that program.
  We're going in the wrong direction. If someone can make the case that 
we have fully exploited all of our opportunities in weatherization or 
can demonstrate that we have done all that we can to make citizens' 
homes and businesses energy efficient, then winding down the program 
would perhaps be reasonable. But we are a long way from achieving that 
goal.
  Energy we do not have to use is, in fact, the cheapest energy 
available to us. We need to be doing much more in efficiency, not less. 
Efficiency should be our fuel of choice.
  This bill is skewed to reinforce our existing energy use patterns. It 
continues outsized investments in the established energy industries 
that have received generous Federal support for nearly a century while 
renewable energy technologies are shortchanged.
  We should be lending Federal assistance where it is most needed: to 
individual citizens and to developing industries that are struggling to 
bring new energy technologies forward, such as solar, wind, and 
geothermal. The petroleum industry has the means to support its own 
research.
  Madam Chair, we are likely to be reliant on fossil fuels for quite 
some time, and we should use these fuels wisely. An all-of-the-above 
strategy must include energy efficiency, and we should support States' 
efforts to encourage the adoption of new energy technologies and 
increase energy efficiency.
  Let's continue our history of bipartisan support for programs that 
save money, create jobs, and improve our energy security. 
Weatherization and SEP are such programs worthy of our

[[Page 8156]]

support. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to strongly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment. His amendment would put at risk our nuclear security 
activities, the things we're doing to modernize our nuclear stockpile, 
the type of investments we're making there that help protect our 
country. And we would be adding money to programs that, quite honestly, 
don't need the money. He referenced some of those programs.
  The Weatherization Program has hundreds of millions of dollars in 
unspent money. Some of it's been obligated; some of it has not been 
obligated. But sitting in that program and in the State programs he 
referred to is a lot of Federal money from the stimulus and other prior 
appropriations that remains unspent. So it's not a question of not 
having enough money. They just haven't spent it down.
  Our bill provides enough funding, new funding, that when combined 
with the unspent funds, our bill will fully fund each State at the 
fiscal year 2010 level. That's enough money for the States. More 
funding is unnecessary.
  This amendment has unnecessary funding, adds unnecessary funding, and 
it cuts our security, our national security, things we need to do for 
our nuclear stockpile, and I strongly oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I rise to support the Tonko-
Bishop-Hirono-Welch amendment, and I commend my good friend and fellow 
New Yorker on his steadfast commitment and long-standing leadership on 
this issue.
  The increase to weatherization funding provided in this amendment 
brings the Weatherization Assistance Program funding close to its pre-
Recovery Act levels, which helped States retrofit close to 100,000 
homes a year. In addition, nearly 92 percent of the Recovery Act funds 
appropriated to the Weatherization Program have been spent, meaning 
that the recommended funding level in this bill will result in a 
majority of States receiving reduced Federal funding for 
weatherization. Arguments to the contrary with respect to available 
funds are simply not accurate.
  New York has spent the entirety of its Recovery Act funds on time and 
under budget, weatherizing nearly 70,000 units, 20 percent, over its 
initial goal. On Long Island, the Community Development Corporation of 
Long Island weatherized 3,000 units, thanks to the Recovery Act, and 
has continued to spend down the regularly appropriated funds it 
receives to retrofit qualified homes.
  Weatherization Assistance continues to be a successful program, and 
we must build on its success. Even after the Recovery Act and regular 
appropriations, the CDC of Long Island has a wait list of 8,000 
qualified homes that could be retrofitted for energy efficiency. The 
demand is there. And this is just Long Island.
  Adequately funding the Weatherization Assistance Program to meet this 
demand will have several positive effects on communities and the 
economy. It will reduce energy costs for homeowners, which is 
absolutely critical as these costs continue to climb. Perhaps most 
important, it will put local contractors back to work retrofitting 
homes to be more energy efficient. This means job creation in local 
communities.
  Most recognize that this is the time when Washington must balance 
spending reduction with wise investment. If we all agree that this 
Congress must do more to foster an environment of job creation, then I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I rise to support the Tonko-Bishop-Hirono-
Welch amendment. This amendment would increase the funding for the 
State Energy Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
  The bill before us slices the State Energy Program in half, from $50 
million to $25 million. I'm not sure what the justification for this 
is. This program is effective and we should continue to support it. In 
fact, each dollar invested through the State Energy Program translates 
into $7.23 of savings on energy costs. It also helps to leverage State 
and local funds for bigger impacts.
  Hawaii has utilized this funding for a variety of beneficial 
activities. It has been used to support expanded clean vehicle 
infrastructure, more energy-efficient buildings, and other purposes.
  This amendment also invests in the Weatherization Assistance Program. 
This program helps the elderly, disabled, and low-income families 
benefit from energy efficiency upgrades.
  Most folks think of helping weatherize homes against cold weather, 
and certainly that's one of the key benefits of this program. In warm 
Hawaii, which has the highest energy costs in the country, we also use 
in this program. We help our families weatherize by installing money-
saving things like energy-efficient water heaters or insulating 
existing water heaters. Since 2009, at least 800 homes in Hawaii have 
been able to improve energy efficiency through this program. A modest 
beginning, but more, of course, needs to be done. This has helped to 
create jobs and give families the benefit of increased energy 
efficiency.
  I recognize the hard decisions that are made in this bill, but these 
programs that we just talked about may seem small but represent big 
savings for families all across our country, and, in fact, it will save 
our country money over the long term.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. 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 New York 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $74,000,000)''.
       Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $74,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I have a simple amendment that takes a 
line item within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program 
back to the fiscal year 2011 level. Now, I think that's probably a 
pretty reasonable approach to it. It's not too long ago. If left to my 
own devices, I'd probably zero it out.
  But if you go back and look within energy efficiency and renewable 
energy and then go back down and look at advanced manufacturing, which 
is the line item that I'm talking about, what this amendment suggests 
is that we would reduce spending on this, what is proposed, by $74 
million, taking it back to the fiscal year 2011 level, which would be 
$76 million.

                              {time}  1120

  Now, that was not just some random number. There was real 
justification for this, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will find this reasonable. I'm going back, and I'm looking at the 
committee report for Energy and Water appropriations, and there are 
three things that I want to highlight within that committee report, so 
I will read from that.

[[Page 8157]]

  The first one I want to highlight reads:

       For example, the Advanced Manufacturing Program within 
     Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy currently funds more 
     than 40 centers in a variety of sizes, ages and effectiveness 
     levels, only a portion of which are mentioned in the budget 
     request. These centers vary in how well they support the 
     program's new manufacturing mission.

  Now, I don't think it's appropriate to literally double--double--from 
2011 levels the spending that we are going to have on these programs 
when we can't basically answer the questions about the effectiveness 
levels.
  In fact, I would go further into the committee's report where it 
reads:

       Addressing this problem requires a higher degree of 
     transparency, evaluation and prioritization to ensure that 
     only highly effective centers closely aligned to program 
     missions are funded.

  I would agree with that. Until we can as a body answer that question, 
it's hardly a time to double the funding for this particular program.
  The report further reads:

       The Department is directed to submit to the committee no 
     later than February 10, 2013, a comprehensive list of all 
     centers funded through fiscal year 2013, including the date 
     of establishment, the funding level in fiscal year 2013, the 
     total funding received to date, purpose, milestones, and 
     expectation of termination date.

  Those are all reasonable things to look at in making this 
determination, but until we can answer that question, I don't think 
it's appropriate to double the spending.
  The third point I'd like to make from the committee report on this 
particular line item reads:

       The committee is concerned that, historically, technology 
     innovations developed through the EERE research and 
     development programs ultimately lead to the manufacturing of 
     new or cheaper products overseas.

  So, if the conclusion of the committee is that the money we spend 
ultimately leads to the development of products overseas, maybe it's 
not time to double the spending there.
  This amendment, Madam Chair, simply reduces the spending on this back 
to 2011 levels. It's a reasonable thing. We can live within that. 
Again, if it were up to me, I would zero it out, but I am trying to be 
reasonable here. Let's save the $76 million, answer these questions, 
and reevaluate the program. That's why I urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman from Utah's 
amendment.
  Our bill works hard to cut Federal spending. We're on his side. We 
want to reduce spending. Our committee has gone through the budget for 
the Department of Energy. We've taken a look at it, and we've 
prioritized. In fact, we've already said in other debates on other 
amendments that we've cut this EERE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, by $428 million. That's 40 percent below the fiscal year 2011 
level. With the remaining funds, we re-prioritize to invest in our 
Nation's most pressing needs, one of which is in doing more research to 
help American manufacturers compete and survive.
  Let me restate: We do not increase this account. We re-prioritize to 
address our Nation's most pressing needs. In this case, the challenge 
is to keep our American manufacturers competitive and to keep jobs 
here. Our bill does that. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would join the chair in opposition to the amendment.
  I would point out one of the fallacies of the gentleman's argument 
that he used on the floor in his language of the committee's report, 
that being our very serious concern that in the past we have applied 
moneys to research that has essentially been siphoned off overseas.
  During general debate yesterday on this floor, in my opening remarks, 
I commended the members of the subcommittee and particularly Chairman 
Frelinghuysen for making sure we don't do that in this bill this year, 
and that there is throughout this bill and that report language 
directives to the Department of Energy to be focused on using this 
money wisely so that we maintain and begin to grow our industrial base 
and our manufacturing base and keep these jobs here.
  This would be a mistake, and I am opposed to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. 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 Utah will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn

  Ms. HAHN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $100,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HAHN. I think it is time that we begin to allow Americans to ease 
off their dependence of oil and give them a real alternative. Every 
day, we see the damage done by our dependence on oil. We see high gas 
prices threatening our economic recovery and burdening families already 
struggling to make ends meet. We see higher respiratory disease rates. 
And we see any number of distant regimes holding our foreign policy 
hostage, weakening our ability to stand by our principles and our 
friends.
  I think it's time for us to throw off these burdens and step into the 
future, not double down on the dependencies of the past. Yet somehow 
this bill allocates almost five times more funding to deepening and 
extending our relationship with fossil energy than it does on advancing 
energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy technologies.
  One of the most promising and necessary things we can do to give 
Americans an alternative to oil is to speed our transition to electric 
vehicles. Passenger cars alone use more than 40 percent of the oil 
consumed in this country. By 2020, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council estimates Americans will spend $260 billion a year on gas.
  Just think of what we stand to gain from helping Americans switch to 
electric vehicles. The technology is here, and all we need to do is 
implement it. My amendment would help us begin to make the kind of 
investments the scale of the opportunity before us requires, giving $50 
million to the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy section.
  I drive an electric vehicle back in Los Angeles, and I haven't been 
to a gas station since last September. Unfortunately, I don't get to 
drive as far as I want to because we haven't yet built the electric 
vehicle charging infrastructure that would help electric vehicle owners 
continue to drive as far as they want. The ``range anxiety'' of not 
being able to find a charging station when the battery goes low means 
that many EV drivers don't drive as far as they can and that many 
prospective electric vehicle owners are scared off. That's why we need 
to get serious about addressing the barriers to the adoption of 
electric vehicles.
  Later this year, Nissan will be making the LEAF, their electric 
vehicle, right here in America, in Tennessee. Just last month, the 
Department of Energy announced they were offering $5 million to spur 
electric vehicle adoption, seeking proposals that address barriers to 
the adoption of these vehicles and that drive market development and 
transformation to make Alternative Fuel Vehicles and fueling 
infrastructure widely available.

[[Page 8158]]

  We need to be bolder. We ought to have 100 times that much here, but 
I know my friends on the other side are a little timid about electric 
vehicles, so I am only proposing 10 times as much. I've even reduced 
the budgetary authority of this bill by $50 million because I know how 
much my Republican friends like to cut spending. With the right 
investments and electric vehicle infrastructure, we can clean our 
skies, free our foreign policy, strengthen our hand with regimes like 
Iran, and put money lost at the pump back into the pockets of American 
consumers.
  Madam Chair, I hope my colleagues on the other side will meet me 
halfway on this, will meet Americans halfway. I hope you will support 
this amendment. This is about jobs in America. This is about giving our 
American consumers an alternative to their sole dependence on oil.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The amendment will reduce fossil fuel energy by $50 million. And 
let's start by noting that fossil fuels produce most of our Nation's 
energy, nearly 70 percent of our electricity and nearly all of our 
transportation fuels.
  But I do appreciate the gentlewoman's passion for electric vehicles. 
In fact, our bill already funds research in that area at above the 
fiscal year 2012 level as part of our focus on programs that address 
future gas prices. Therefore, I do oppose her amendment. I understand 
her views and her passion, but I strongly oppose it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
the gentlewoman's amendment for the very reasons that I mentioned 
earlier in debate when the gentleman from Illinois had an amendment to 
cut EERE--the renewable accounts--to add $15 million to science. Again, 
in this case, I don't think it is wise for us to make a choice of 
cutting fossil energy research by $100 million to increase the energy 
efficiency account by one-half that amount, $50 million.
  The fact is I understand that some people have a significant concern 
about the use of fossil fuels. I certainly do myself. But the fact 
remains that 83 percent of all energy consumption in the United States 
today is generated by fossil fuel, and we need to apply ourselves to 
the wise and efficient use of that fuel as well.
  Again, I would reluctantly be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. HAHN. 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 gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $335,000,000)''.
       Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $335,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, my amendment would reduce 
funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $355 
million, with the intention of removing all funding for vehicle 
technologies. This reduction would be transferred to the spending 
reduction account.
  Madam Chairman, I'm 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry 
producing more fuel-efficient automobiles if they choose to do so; 
however, there is simply no good reason that the Federal Government 
should be subsidizing billion-dollar companies at a time when our 
Nation is broke.
  Over the past few years, we have seen the automobile industry receive 
an unprecedented amount of government assistance. We've seen an 
industry bailout, the market-distorting Cash for Clunkers, and many 
more subsidies all done with little regard for taxpayer money. It's 
time we begin to reverse this disturbing trend and let the automobile 
industry succeed or fail on its own merits.
  I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, briefly I rise to oppose the 
amendment.
  I share my colleague's concerns that we should not be funding 
activities that the private sector should do on its own. That's why our 
bill cuts 24 percent out of this account, only preserving appropriate 
Federal activities that are too risky for the private sector to take on 
alone. The amendment goes too far, undercuts our ability to address gas 
prices, and therefore I must oppose it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I simply would add my agreement to the chairman's 
opposition to the amendment.
  I had already remarked earlier in the day relative to my support for 
vehicle technology and am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and 
     energy reliability activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $123,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of such 
     amount, $27,600,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2014, for program direction.

                             Nuclear Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, and the purchase of not more than 10 buses and 
     2 ambulances, all for replacement only, $765,391,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $10,000,000 shall 
     be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund established in section 
     302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 
     10222(c)), to be made available only to support the high-
     level waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain: Provided, 
     That, of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $90,015,000 shall be available until September 30, 2014, for 
     program direction.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order:
  An amendment by Mr. Scalise of Louisiana.

[[Page 8159]]

  An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  An amendment by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  An amendment by Mr. Hultgren of Illinois.
  An amendment by Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. McClintock of California.
  An amendment by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.
  An amendment by Mr. Tonko of New York.
  An amendment by Ms. Hahn of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Scalise) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 177, not voting 38, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               AYES--216

     Adams
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Denham
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Turner (NY)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--177

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Granger
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Labrador
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waxman
     Webster
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Baca
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Gallegly
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Kind
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Neal
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schilling
     Scott, David
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1209

  Mr. WALDEN, Mrs. ROBY, Mr. MORAN, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Messrs. LATTA, 
KINGSTON, LABRADOR, BASS of New Hampshire, Ms. BONAMICI, Ms. LORETTA 
SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. SIMPSON, FINCHER, SMITH of Nebraska, 
DesJARLAIS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Messrs. RYAN of Ohio, HONDA, RUSH, and 
FRANK of Massachusetts changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE 
JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. LEE of California, Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, 
THOMPSON of Mississippi, GRIFFITH of Virginia, Ms. WILSON of Florida, 
Messrs. REED, KINZINGER of Illinois, WESTMORELAND, CANTOR, Ms. 
SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. WHITFIELD, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Messrs. AL GREEN of 
Texas, ISRAEL, AMODEI, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. CUELLAR, Mrs. LOWEY, Messrs. 
MEEKS, CLEAVER, FORBES, CONYERS, BECERRA, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, 
Messrs. PASTOR of Arizona, CICILLINE, GRAVES of Missouri, LUJAN, POLIS, 
NUGENT, GONZALEZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. LANGEVIN, DEUTCH, and 
HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203, 
noes 185, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 307]

                               AYES--203

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta

[[Page 8160]]


     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--185

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Upton
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Alexander
     Baca
     Bass (CA)
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Gallegly
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Huizenga (MI)
     Kind
     Landry
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Neal
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schilling
     Scott, David
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1212

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 237, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               AYES--152

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page 8161]]


     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Alexander
     Baca
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Fortenberry
     Gallegly
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Huizenga (MI)
     Kind
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Neal
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schilling
     Scott, David
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Stivers
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1216

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hultgren

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hultgren) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130, 
noes 256, not voting 45, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               AYES--130

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Miller (FL)
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Turner (NY)
     Walberg
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--256

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                             NOT VOTING--45

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bucshon
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Gallegly
     Graves (GA)
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Huizenga (MI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kind
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Neal
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schilling
     Scott, David
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1219

  Mr. PALLONE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 8162]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140, 
noes 245, not voting 46, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               AYES--140

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Turner (NY)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--245

     Aderholt
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--46

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bass (CA)
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     Crowley
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Gallegly
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Huizenga (MI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kind
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Neal
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schilling
     Scott, David
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Stutzman
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1223

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113, 
noes 275, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               AYES--113

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Conaway
     Culberson
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kline
     Labrador
     Landry
     Long
     Lummis
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Turner (NY)
     Upton
     Walberg
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--275

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell

[[Page 8163]]


     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Baca
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Gallegly
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Huizenga (MI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kind
     Lamborn
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Neal
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schilling
     Scott, David
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1227

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 200, not voting 48, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--183

     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--200

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--48

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     DeFazio
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Fortenberry
     Gallegly
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Huizenga (MI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kind
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Neal
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schilling
     Scott, David
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1230

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 8164]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 236, not voting 47, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 313]

                               AYES--148

     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Turner (NY)
     Van Hollen
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--47

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Baca
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Gallegly
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Honda
     Huizenga (MI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kind
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Neal
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schilling
     Scott, David
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Stearns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1233

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 313 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Hahn) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139, 
noes 245, not voting 47, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               AYES--139

     Amash
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris

[[Page 8165]]


     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Towns
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--47

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Baca
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costa
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Gallegly
     Granger
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Huizenga (MI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kind
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Neal
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schilling
     Scott, David
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1237

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chair, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote Nos. 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313 and 314. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 308, 
312, and 313. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 
vote Nos. 306, 307, 309, 310, 311 and 314.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Turner of New York) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Capito, 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. 
5325) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________