[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11052-11092]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2014


                             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 include extraneous material on consideration of H.R. 2609, 
and that I might include tabular material on the same.

[[Page 11053]]

  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 288 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2609.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1352


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is my honor to bring the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water 
Development bill before the membership of the House.
  However, before I go through its highlights, I would like to thank my 
ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for her partnership on this bill and hard 
work and friendship. It's been a real honor to work with you, and I 
look forward to working with you to get through the entire process. I 
would also like to thank all the members of our committee on both sides 
of the aisle for putting this bill so quickly together and so 
responsibly.
  I would also like to recognize the hard work of Chairman Rogers and 
Ranking Member Lowey to bring this bill, and several others before it, 
to the floor under an open rule.
  The bill for fiscal year 2014 totals $30.4 billion, $2.9 billion 
below last year's levels and more than $4 billion below the President's 
request.
  The budget allocation we received this year made for some very 
difficult decisions, but in our bipartisan tradition, we worked hard to 
incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, we placed the greatest priority on national defense, 
our nuclear deterrent, also the critical work of the Army Corps of 
Engineers and other activities on which the Federal Government must 
take the lead. The reductions we had to make to the applied energy 
research and development programs will shift more of their work to the 
private sector.
  The bill provides $7.6 billion, an increase of $98 million above the 
fiscal year 2013 amount, to modernize the Nation's nuclear weapons 
stockpile and its supporting infrastructure, excluding rescissions.
  I would also like to note that the recommendation contains no funding 
to implement the President's recently announced plans in Berlin to 
reduce the nuclear stockpile. No funding for such purposes will be 
available until Congress has judged that these plans will fully support 
our national defense.
  The recommendations increase the Corps of Engineers by $50 million 
above the President's request and redirects funds to ensure our 
waterways and harbors keep America open for business and economically 
competitive. These waterways and harbors handled foreign commerce 
valued at more than $1.7 trillion last year alone. As in previous 
fiscal years, the bill maintains the constitutional role of Congress in 
the appropriations process by ensuring that all worthy Corps of 
Engineers projects have a chance to compete for funding.
  Basic science programs total $4.7 billion, just above last year's 
post-sequestration levels.
  Environmental cleanup programs to address the legacy of the Manhattan 
Project and other contaminated sites are funded at $5.5 billion, 
approximately $185 million above the post-sequester levels for fiscal 
year 2013.
  In order to find room for the bill's core priorities, applied energy 
research and development had to be cut. The recommendation prioritizes 
funding in this area for programs which truly support American 
manufacturing jobs, stable energy prices, and diversity of energy 
supplies.
  Our bill includes $450 million for fossil energy technologies and 
$650 million for nuclear energy activities. Both of these programs are 
cut below the fiscal year 2013 post-sequester level.
  The bill combines the electricity delivery program and the energy 
efficiency and renewable energy program, and provides $983 million for 
these activities, excluding rescissions. The recommendation orients 
these programs to focus on electricity infrastructure resilience--to 
include cybersecurity--and gasoline prices.
  Finally, on Yucca Mountain, our recommendation includes $25 million 
to sustain the program, along with similar language as last year's 
prohibiting activities which keep that facility from being usable in 
the future. It also includes support for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to get that Yucca license application finally finished. No 
funding is included for requested activities to move past the Yucca 
Mountain repository program. If and when Congress authorizes changes to 
the program of record, the committee will consider funding for 
alternatives.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill recognizes our fiscal realities and makes the 
tough decisions to ensure we get our spending under control without 
sacrificing our most critical of Federal functions. I'm expecting a 
vigorous and open debate during an open process over the coming days so 
all can have a chance to contribute to this legislation.
  Before I reserve the balance of my time, I want to thank those who 
helped bring this bill on the floor. On the majority side: our clerk, 
Rob Blair; Angie Giancarlo; Ben Hammond; Loraine Heckenberg; Perry 
Yates; Adam Borrelli. On the minority side: Taunja Berquam. From our 
personal offices, Ms. Kaptur's: Nathan Facey, her deputy chief of 
staff; and Ryan Steyer. From my staff: Nancy Fox, my chief of staff; 
and Katie Hazlett.
  All of these individuals and others behind the scenes make this 
process work, one that we can be proud of, and I think we have a bill 
that, indeed, we can be proud of.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 11054]]





[[Page 11055]]



[[Page 11056]]



[[Page 11057]]



[[Page 11058]]


  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate Chairman Frelinghuysen's able and collegial leadership 
throughout this process and efforts to assemble a bill in an inclusive 
manner in our subcommittee. I also want to say what a pleasure it was 
to work with him, and I wish all subcommittees could work as 
effectively.
  I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their 
efforts to restore a semblance of regular order to this House in 
consideration of our appropriations bills, and I want to thank all 
members of our subcommittee for their thoughtful deliberation in 
considering the best interests of our Nation as they relate to energy 
and water development and, importantly, America's nuclear security.
  I appreciate the dedication, hard work, and sound judgment of our 
committee staff on both sides of the aisle. On the majority committee 
staff side: Rob Blair, Ben Hammond, Loraine Heckenberg, Angie 
Giancarlo, Perry Yates, and Adam Borrelli. And on the minority 
committee staff side: Taunja Berquam; from the Chairman's personal 
office, Katie Hazlett and Nancy Fox; and finally my staff, Ryan Steyer, 
Nathan Facey, and Steve Fought.

                              {time}  1400

  While Chairman Frelinghuysen's worthy efforts are to be commended in 
the highest way, the allocation imposed on our subcommittee by the 
Republican leaders of this House, and its Budget Committee, move 
America backwards in a global economy where our Nation's future is at 
stake.
  The Budget Committee's directive to us reminds me of a seafaring 
expression: ``If you don't know which way your ship is headed, you're 
bound to run aground or die at sea.''
  This bill runs America aground. It says to future generations, we'll 
risk your lives floating lost at sea. It's simply inadequate to meet 
the needs of our Nation.
  America's budget deficit spiked because high unemployment, resulting 
from Wall Street's abandon and over a decade of war, caused high 
unemployment that reduced Federal revenues.
  This bill will not embrace the future, nor create the necessary jobs 
to reverse that trend and lift up America's working families. Our focus 
has to be on the future, on creating jobs and opportunity, with every 
single measure that comes before this House.
  Foreign energy dependence is our Nation's chief strategic 
vulnerability. This bill abandons America's quest for energy 
independence, which has the potential to create millions of new jobs.
  For every American life lost in pursuit of our Nation's national 
security, now dependent on energy imports, I dedicate my work on this 
bill today. And I also dedicate my work on the floor in memory of Judge 
Francis ``Buddy'' Restivo, a World War II veteran who passed this 
weekend, and just a phenomenal citizen of our country.
  This bill not only guts funding for alternative energy research and 
development, it officially heralds the Republican majority's embrace of 
sequestration.
  Sequestration is the most vivid symbol of congressional negligence. 
With that one dreadful bill, the Republican majority manages not only 
to turn its back on energy independence, but also to surrender its 
congressional responsibility to manage the budget of our country 
responsibly. The majority has waved the white flag.
  This year, in the Lake Erie region, we are celebrating the heroics of 
Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, hero of the pivotal battle of Lake Erie 
in the War of 1812. Oliver Hazard Perry's motto was ``Don't give up the 
ship.''
  The majority's motto is ``We just give up.'' We give up trying to 
perform our constitutional responsibilities with respect to fiscal 
affairs. We give up trying to create the much-needed jobs that will 
restore our fiscal footing. We give up trying to help America break 
free of its dependence on imported petroleum. We just give up. Let the 
mindless sequester be the status quo.
  It's no mystery why Congress' approval ratings have hit an all-time 
low. This policy is running our economic ship of state aground when we 
need full sail ahead.
  The allocation for the energy and water bill is $30.4 billion, which 
is $4.1 billion below the administration's request and $2.8 billion 
below last year's level. There are further allocation cuts beyond even 
sequestration levels, resulting in deep and severe reductions made to 
important priorities within the bill.
  The chairman worked to include resources for many Federal priorities, 
including the Corps of Engineers, the Advanced Manufacturing Office, 
nuclear safety and cleanup, and the bill also prioritizes some of the 
nuclear security programs.
  But funding these programs came at the expense of others so vital to 
future energy systems for our Nation, including renewable energy, cut 
by nearly 60 percent, and advanced energy research at ARPA-E, which 
received an 81 percent reduction.
  Shortchanging critical energy and infrastructure investments will 
slow economic growth and job creation, hindering America's 
competitiveness.
  Let us look at the water accounts. We must continue to invest in 
America. The scope of damage caused by natural disasters like Hurricane 
Sandy have laid bare the inadequacies of our water infrastructure.
  The Corps of Engineers budget currently has a backlog of authorized 
projects in excess of $60 billion from coast to coast. But this bill 
continues a steady decline in water resources infrastructure, reducing 
the construction account by $304 million from 2013.
  Communities across our country will continue to erode as they 
experience, firsthand, this decreased investment. The risks illustrated 
by the failure of flood control projects that the American people 
endured in the wake of Katrina are not gone. Communities across our 
country are in desperate need of investment, but this bill shortcuts 
that.
  Take St. Louis, Missouri, or Sacramento, California, where a levee 
break could leave residents with as little as 20 minutes to flee before 
the water gets 1 foot deep, are just two examples of major metropolitan 
areas where the Corps must work harder and faster toward more 
comprehensive protection.
  What sense does cleaning up after natural disasters make when 
preventive measures could prevent destruction and loss of life?
  We should be doing more to build infrastructure and create jobs, not 
less. Investments now will yield future benefits that will far outweigh 
repayment costs. That is what the Hoover Dam was all about. That is 
what our Mississippi River lock and dam system is all about. That is 
what electrifying our Nation, rural and urban, was all about, great 
visions for a great Nation, not Lilliputian surrender.
  On future energy systems, this bill would slash funding for applied 
energy research and development by more than half, even as foreign 
competition doubles down to develop 21st century technology while 
undermining our markets through illegal dumping and intellectual 
property theft.
  Renewable energy is a vital leg of future energy independence beyond 
the fossil fuel age. It will achieve cost competitiveness, but the 
question is, which countries will develop and own those technologies?
  The United States has spent $2.3 trillion importing foreign petroleum 
since 2003, representing thousands and thousands of dollars out of the 
pockets of every hardworking American family. These are dollars 
diverted not to much-needed American job creation but overseas, 
assisting our competitors in developing their economies and their 
energy futures. We are ceding millions of jobs and trillions in income 
from this country to undemocratic kingdoms far from home.
  Wake up, America. Wake up, Congress.
  In 2012, every billion dollars of U.S. exports supported nearly 5,000 
jobs here at home. But can you imagine what $2.3 trillion in our energy 
trade deficit translates into lost jobs in America over the last 10 
years?
  It's a hemorrhage. Our Republic will not compete in this 21st century 
and

[[Page 11059]]

beyond if we further reduce investments in this area and cede our 
energy future to other countries.
  Predatory foreign competition in energy poses a real security threat 
to our country. I view it as the chief security threat to our country. 
I appreciate the chairman's commitment to ensure that technology 
developed with taxpayer dollars benefits our Nation first.
  The Department of Energy, however, must do more to ensure that 
intellectual property supported by Federal dollars furthers the 
interests of the United States economy. And I'm concerned with the 
level of funding, but I appreciate the chairman's commitment to 
American manufacturing in this bill.
  Manufacturing remains one of the most important job drivers in our 
economy, and there is little merit in using Federal dollars to foster 
technological advances or breakthroughs for products that are not 
ultimately made in America and manufactured domestically.
  America must do more to reverse the trend of domestic firms shifting 
production overseas because, to put it simply, domestic manufacturing 
drives domestic innovation and jobs here in America.
  Tragically, the science account critical to the competitiveness of 
our Nation is reduced by 5 percent from 2012. And, with an 81 percent 
reduction, 81 percent reduction in the new ARPA-E program, this bill 
would effectively end the most advanced research our Nation can launch. 
That is not a formula for success.
  We are beginning to see the initial payment from the ARPA-E, which 
advances high-potential, high-impact energy technology so advanced it 
is too early for private sector investment. Return on investment from 
our publicly-funded research and development ranges from 20 to 67 
percent. It's a home run.
  With this rate of return, Congress should be increasing our 
investment in science. This bill moves us exactly in the opposite 
direction.
  Finally, I remain concerned this bill increases spending for nuclear 
weapons upgrades at the expense of nuclear nonproliferation and 
cleanup. I support the funding to maintain our nuclear arsenal at 
acceptable levels, and I appreciate the efforts to improve program and 
project management, including the reporting requirement on Life 
Extension Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration.
  However, nonproliferation programs are on the front lines of our 
defense. They are the most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent 
goal of securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade 
material. But this bill cuts these critical efforts by $559 million.
  What sense does that make?
  Further, I am concerned that the funding the bill includes for 
environmental management activities is insufficient to meet the Federal 
Government's legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear waste.
  In sum, this bill should achieve critical investments in our country. 
It fails to do so. It should promote job creation. It fails to do so. 
It should ensure national energy security and national security. It 
fails to do so. It should protect and promote vital infrastructure. It 
fails to do so. And it should advance American competitiveness, and it 
fails to do so.
  Unfortunately, Republicans on the Budget Committee continue to push 
the outrageous notion that we can balance our budget through cuts to 
non-defense discretionary spending, which accounts for only 17 percent 
of Federal spending. In so doing, they harm America's future in a very 
major way.
  Again, I commend the chairman's effort, however the allocation for 
this bill is insufficient and irresponsible and I cannot, in good 
conscience, support it.
  It is my firm hope that the committee will be provided a workable 
path toward the fiscal 2014 appropriation bills, and I look forward to 
the day we will return allocations to acceptable levels and to working 
with the chairman to draft a bill worthy of support.
  Let me, before reserving the balance of my time, read that quote 
right up there above the Speaker's rostrum.

       Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its 
     powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great 
     interests, and see whether we also, in our day and 
     generation, may not perform something worthy to be 
     remembered.

  That is our charge in this bill, and this bill fails.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), our very able ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Well, I first want to thank the chair, and I appreciate 
your important work on this bill. And I would like to thank the 
chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member, for your 
leadership and for your eloquent statement on this bill. It has been a 
pleasure for me to work with you, and I thank you so very much.
  I rise in strong opposition to this woefully inadequate bill. With an 
allocation of $30.4 billion, $2.8 billion less than the FY 2013 enacted 
level, when adjusted for Sandy reconstruction, and a little more than 
$4 billion below the request, the consequences of following the 
majority's budget are crystal clear: the erosion of America's high-tech 
and scientific workforce, the loss of clean and renewable energy 
breakthroughs to countries like China, the abandonment of communities 
along our Nation's coastlines and waterways.
  And with an 81 percent reduction in ARPA-E and a 60 percent, or $700 
million, reduction to energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy 
delivery and reliability programs compared to last year, this bill will 
leave our scientific and technological workforce ill-equipped to tackle 
the great challenges of our time. Such drastic cuts will force the 
Federal Government to withdraw critical support for clean energy and 
renewable investments on the cusp of their maturity.

                              {time}  1415

  These funding levels will inflict great pain on the American people, 
who will be left jobless with the exportation of America's clean energy 
and innovation economy to China and other foreign competitors.
  The consequence of allowing our competitors to gain ground is already 
evident. Last month, China's newest supercomputer, which was built 
almost entirely from Chinese parts, was deemed the fastest in the 
world, clocking in about twice as fast as the best American machine. If 
supercomputing is a measure of our scientific innovation, we are losing 
badly.
  This bill also dramatically underinvests by $300 million below last 
year in our Nation's water resource infrastructure, leaving homes, 
businesses, and communities vulnerable to damage from natural disasters 
like Superstorm Sandy. This decrease would compound prior cuts in 2011, 
2012, and 2013, totaling $769 million, of which $688 million was cut 
from the Army Corps' construction account for projects we all know need 
to be done. Over 300 projects were suspended between 2011 and 2012. Are 
we going to abandon these projects forever? As a Member whose district 
was affected by Hurricane Sandy, I can attest that prevention is 
cheaper and smarter than paying for reconstruction later.
  Additionally, decreasing investments in water infrastructure inhibits 
construction job creation, and local businesses and individuals will 
not reap the indirect economic benefits that encourages critical 
investments in their communities.
  It is my firm hope that the majority will recognize that this bill 
does not provide a workable path forward and return to the spending 
levels agreed to under the Budget Control Act. To do otherwise is to 
purposely undermine efforts to support American job creation and 
economic growth.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California, Representative Bera.

[[Page 11060]]


  Mr. BERA of California. I rise today to applaud the committee for 
addressing a critical issue not just to my own hometown but to our 
Nation.
  Most know Sacramento as the capital of the Golden State. What many 
don't know is that the Sacramento region, which sits at the confluence 
of the Sacramento and American Rivers, where they converge near the bay 
delta, has the second highest flood risk in the United States. Only New 
Orleans is at greater risk for flooding. And we know what happened in 
Hurricane Katrina.
  The Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project is vital to protecting the 
region from disaster. We must continue to fund these improvements to 
take pressure off our overburdened levees and keep people who work and 
live in the region safe. A flood in Sacramento would be devastating to 
the 1.4 million residents in our metropolitan area. The flood risk 
could result in closures of evacuation routes like Interstate 5 and 
Interstate 80, a shutdown of our international airport, and destruction 
of homes and hospitals, not to mention the irreversible tragic loss of 
life. Additionally, flooding could result in billions of dollars in 
potential damage, and it could take weeks or months to pump the water 
out of the region.
  Another area of crucial importance that I hope this body will soon 
address is the Sacramento-American River levee system. Many of the 
levees in my area date from the 1870s, when farmers began building 
nearly 1,100 miles of protection around the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta to control floodwaters and create farmland. Today, these levees 
are in desperate need of critical repair to help prevent a catastrophic 
disaster.
  We all witnessed the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy this past 
November. However, unlike a slow-moving hurricane, a breach of the 
levees could occur with little or no warning. In fact, Robert Bea, 
professor of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, 
warns:

       In terms of damage, deaths, and long-term costs, a rupture 
     in the delta levees would be far more destructive than what 
     happened in Hurricane Katrina. This is a ticking bomb.

  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BERA of California. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 
declared a state of emergency for California's levees. He signed an 
executive order directing agencies to identify, evaluate, and repair 
the levees. The citizens in Natomas levied themselves a tax; and 
they've already paid, along with the State of California, for 35 
percent of the work. But we now need this body to allocate the rest to 
keep our region safe.
  As the ranking member said, it is better to prevent a catastrophe 
than wait for that tragic loss of life. Addressing vital projects like 
the Sacramento-American River levees is crucial. It's what we should be 
doing. It puts people to work. It is time for us to come together as a 
body and get America working again and fund vital projects like the 
Sacramento-American River levees.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, Representative Janice Hahn.
  Ms. HAHN. I'm disappointed that, once again, we're shortchanging 
American ports, businesses, and consumers by failing to fully utilize 
the receipts and surplus of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund on our 
ports.
  When our ports aren't well maintained, when we fail to support their 
infrastructure and their dredging, we threaten more than $3 trillion of 
economic output and over 13 million jobs. American consumers face 
higher costs and American businesses have a harder time competing 
globally.
  Decades ago, Congress created a tax on the value of the goods 
imported through our ports to ensure that no American port would suffer 
underdredging. Yet, for years, Congress has failed to fully use the 
receipts of this tax on keeping our ports in good order. It has gotten 
so bad that the American Association of Port Authorities estimates that 
the full channel dimensions of our Nation's ports and harbors are 
available less than 35 percent of the time. Ships are constantly forced 
to light load or wait for high tide to enter U.S. harbors. Those 
inefficiencies and added costs ripple all the way back to the wallets 
of average Americans. I don't think it's right to make Americans pay 
for a tax and pay again for our failure to use that tax that we 
promised.
  We may be increasing the amount of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
we are spending on ports in this bill, but it still $700 million less 
than what our ports are owed. By the start of FY 2015, we will owe our 
ports nearly $9 billion that should have gone to investments in our 
ports that would create jobs and keep us globally competitive. We can't 
wait anymore. We need to fully utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund as soon as possible.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, may I ask if the ranking member, Ms. 
Kaptur, is prepared to close.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, we have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, the Energy and Water Subcommittee is to be 
commended for its efforts to present a more balanced and reasoned 
approach to America's energy needs, particularly with respect to 
numerous provisions that recognize coal's key role in our Nation's 
energy supply. I strongly support, for example, provisions in the bill 
that would block agency efforts to redefine fill and jurisdictional 
waters of the United States--both of which would have severe 
consequences for coal mining in my home state.
  I am grateful to the Subcommittee for providing $450 million for 
Fossil Energy Research and Development at the Department of Energy--a 
figure that is $20 million above the President's request. That bump up 
represents the realization that coal is and will continue to be a vital 
part of America's energy portfolio throughout the foreseeable future. 
It is particularly significant given the overall budgetary constraints 
with which the Appropriations Committee is confronted and against the 
backdrop of anti-coal political fervor that seems to have taken hold in 
much of Washington these days.
  As much as I welcome this additional funding, I feel it important to 
make the case for even more funding for coal research and development. 
Just this week, in testimony before the Committee on Natural Resources, 
a representative for the Institute for Energy Research noted that coal 
continues to be an abundant domestic energy resource; that it provides 
more than 40 percent of energy production worldwide; and that other 
nations--including China and Germany--are ramping up coal-fired 
electricity generation. In fact, according to the Energy Information 
Administration, coal use in China has grown by 40 percent over the last 
decade.
  However much the legions of wishful thinkers believe they can merely 
fantasize coal away, coal is real, it is here, and its use is on the 
rise globally.
  Given that truth--one thing that coal supporters and coal opponents 
ought to agree on is that we should continue pursuing every avenue to 
find more and better ways to burn coal more cleanly and efficiently. 
Through the fossil energy program, public-private partnerships have led 
to huge improvements in the efficiency of coal power as well as 
dramatic reductions in the environmental effects of burning coal.
  I believe that effort ought to continue and that the United States 
ought to continue leading that effort, but to do that we need to fund 
research and development robustly and better position our Nation to 
shape worldwide energy advances.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which is a poster child for why 
this House needs to get serious about replacing the sequester with a 
balanced, long-term budget agreement that keeps faith with our values 
and funds critical to national priorities.
  According to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance for the 
Pew Charitable Trusts, China overtook the United States in the 21st 
century's clean energy race last year, attracting $65.1 billion in 
clean energy investment compared to just $35.6 billion in the U.S. 
Rather than responding aggressively to this challenge, today's 
legislation effectively proposes to throw in the towel and slashes 
clean energy funding by 60 percent. As a result,

[[Page 11061]]

America's families and businesses will be forced to pay more than they 
otherwise would on their utility bills as fewer homes are weatherized, 
deployment of cost-effective clean energy technologies is delayed and 
smart grid modernization is postponed.
  The Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, or ARPA-E, faces an 
even more devastating 81 percent cut. This early stage, high-impact 
program created by the bipartisan America Competes Act has already 
leveraged more than $450 million in private sector investment from $70 
million in funding to game-changing opportunities in areas like energy 
storage, advanced biofuels and smart grid technology. ARPA-E--and the 
transformational breakthroughs it is driving--would be all but shut 
down under this legislation.
  From basic research at DoE's Office of Science to environmental 
cleanup at our nation's nuclear defense sites to tackling the current 
$60 billion backlog at the Army Corps of Engineers, this legislation 
shrinks from America's challenges and shortchanges America's future.
  We can and should do better.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today on behalf of the Safe Climate 
Caucus to continue our effort to end the conspiracy of silence in this 
body surrounding the issue of our time: the growing threat posed by 
climate change.
  We have a moral obligation to be responsible stewards of the 
environment for our children and future generations. History will not 
judge the House of Representatives kindly if we continue to ignore the 
mounting danger and act like the last refuge of the Flat Earth Society.
  Yet that is what we are doing. The Republican strategy amounts to a 
conspiracy of silence. Despite our repeated requests for hearings and 
debate, the Republican majority refuses to hold hearings, continues to 
deny the science, and passes legislation that recklessly endangers our 
atmosphere.
  In the last Congress, the Republican-led House voted 53 times to 
block any action on climate change. The Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill on the floor this week guts funding for research and development 
for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
  It is still not too late to stop the rising CO2 levels in 
our atmosphere. The United States can still be the world leader in the 
clean energy technologies of the future. But we must act now.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I represent areas of North and 
East Harris County and Houston, including a large portion of the Port 
of Houston and the Houston Ship Channel. Water development projects at 
the Army Corps of Engineers are critical to our economy and to our 
safety. We rely on flood control and dredging projects in the Houston/
Harris County, Texas area. Flood control projects protect lives and 
property every year in our district. However, without adequate Army 
Corps money, necessary maintenance and new projects will be neglected 
putting our area at risk.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill is important to us. This 
bill needs to provide more funding for the Army Corps.
  The Port of Houston is the largest foreign tonnage port and the 
largest petrochemical port in the country. In fact, it moves the second 
largest amount of cargo in the country, as 8.5% of our nation's cargo 
moves through the Port of Houston. The commerce that occurs at our port 
is critical to our nation's energy and chemical sectors and to our 
country's ability to trade and move goods throughout our country. It is 
a port of national significance, but has not received the attention 
that is necessary to answer the challenges we face in the near future.
  Despite the national importance of our port, it is facing a dredging 
crisis.
  The President's budget request funded dredging at the Port at around 
half the actual need. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill doesn't 
even get us to the President's request level. Infrastructure is a key 
component of commerce and it is time the House of Representatives 
starts passing legislation recognizing this important fact.
  Additionally, by cutting New Starts completely, this bill prevents 
funding for a vital project in Houston that will explore widening and 
deepening the shipping channel to the Turning Basin. This funding is 
critical to preparing our Port for the years ahead.
  In 1998, the Federal Government and the Port of Houston invested $700 
million over the course of years, to deepen and widen the Ship Channel. 
An investment we have benefitted from tremendously.
  As the years have passed silt has settled and reduced the draft in 
the channel significantly. Today, only a small portion of the channel 
is dredged to its proper depth across the entire width of the channel. 
That is astounding. Our nation's investment is rapidly deteriorating. 
Currently, the Houston Ship Channel is dredged to a depth of 43 feet, 
but it should be 45 feet. The Panama Canal is expanding and when it is 
completed, the Port of Houston should be at a minimum of 45 feet and we 
could take advantage of additional depth.
  As we confront the dual challenges of adopting policies that create 
jobs and reduce the debt, funding for dredging projects is an item 
that, while costly, will have more of a positive impact on our economy 
than a negative impact on our deficit. The Texas Transportation 
Institute performed a study and determined that a direct economic 
impact of the loss of 1 foot of draft is $373 million. The majority of 
this impact is lost business opportunities due to light loading of non-
containerized vessels. As the dredging crisis at the port continues to 
worsen, the opportunity cost will quickly increase.
  The time to increase our investment in our infrastructure is now. We 
can't wait until the economy improves because strengthening our 
infrastructure is integral to growing our economy.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has 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. 2609

       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, 2014, 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 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, $90,000,000, 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), $1,343,000,000, 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.

                   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, 
     $249,000,000, 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

[[Page 11062]]

     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, $2,682,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of eligible operation and maintenance costs for 
     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, 
     $193,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015.

            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, $28,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                                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, $182,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2015, 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 this title 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.

     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, 2015.

                        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.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. In looking at our bill and looking at some of the 
accounts, especially for the energy and water accounts and the general 
provisions, there was an excellent article in this week's International 
Herald Tribune. It talks about sound investments. I will read portions 
of it very briefly here. It talks about how the rate of economic growth 
in Germany is surpassing our own just now, and the unemployment rate as 
a result has dropped to 5.3 percent, and falling further--much lower 
than in the United States. It investigates why that is the case. It 
talks quite a bit here about the German economy having made investments 
whose future benefits will far outweigh repayment costs. This bill and 
its accounts, essentially, should be doing that; but, unfortunately, it 
cuts back on some of the most significant job growth.
  The article goes on to say that the U.S. economy is still in 
doldrums. And that's because many of the needed workers and machines 
are now idle. If the country waits, it will need to bid them away from 
other tasks. Also, because of the sluggish economy, the materials 
required for the work are now relatively inexpensive. So this is really 
the time to encourage investment in our economy to lift the entire 
system.
  The article goes on to talk about the fact that in Germany there had 
been certain austerity backers, they call them, and it says:

       Now austerity backers urge--preposterously--that 
     infrastructure repairs be postponed until government budgets 
     are in balance. But would they also tell an indebted family 
     to postpone fixing a leaky roof until it paid off all of its 
     debts? Not only would the repair grow more costly with the 
     delay, but the water damage would mount in the interim. 
     Families should pay off debts, yes, but not in ways that 
     actually increase their indebtedness in the longer term.

  I found this article particularly instructive as we move amendments 
to the floor and move this bill forward.
  In the article it says:

       Austerity advocates object that more deficit spending now 
     will burden grandchildren with crushing debt. That might be 
     true if the proposal were to build bigger houses and stage 
     more lavish parties with borrowed money.

  But, in fact, the dollars were being invested in the nation in 
projects that were creating opportunity and infrastructure that would 
advance the worth of the nation in decades hence.

                              {time}  1430

  So I think that we ought to think about this as we proceed title by 
title in this bill and ask ourselves the question why it is that many 
of the important accounts, such as the Corps of Engineers--and several 
of our speakers today have referenced those--has been cut by $104 
million compared to this year's enacted level and falls far short of 
the investments that we need in one of the fundamentals in the country, 
and that is in water systems.
  Madam Chair, I will place this article in the Record from the 
International Herald Tribune.

[[Page 11063]]

  I also want to point out and place in the Record some of the severe 
cutbacks in this bill with more specificity:
  The Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency account is 
$971 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $1.96 billion less 
than the President's request;
  The Department of Energy Office of Science is $223 million less than 
2013's enacted level and $499.8 million less than the President's 
request;
  The Advanced Research Projects Agency is $215 million less than the 
2013 enacted level and $329 million less than the President's request;
  The funding for environmental cleanup is $243 million less than the 
2013 enacted level and $133 million less than the President's request;
  The Nuclear Nonproliferation account is $334 million less than the 
2013 enacted level and $40 million less than the President's request;
  In terms of the Army Corps of Engineers, it is $104 million less than 
the 2013 enacted level;
  In the water resources projects within the Department of the 
Interior, there is a $104 million reduction less than the 2013 enacted 
level and $85 million less than the President's request.
  So when we think about the cumulative impact of it, it is just 
extraordinary. And I will place this data in the Record as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

    [From the Global Edition of the New York Times, July 6-7, 2013]

                    When Debt Is a Sound Investment

                          (By Robert H. Frank)

       I recently spent a week in Berlin, where the entire city 
     seemed under construction. In every direction, cranes and 
     other heavy equipment dominated the landscape. Although many 
     projects are in the private sector, innumerable others--
     including bridge and highway repairs, new subway stations, 
     and other infrastructure work are financed by taxpayers.
       But wait. Hasn't Germany been one of the most outspoken 
     advocates of fiscal austerity after the financial crisis? 
     Yes, and that's not a contradiction. Fiscally responsible 
     businesses routinely borrow to invest, and, until recently, 
     so did most governments.
       Lately, however, fears about growing government debt have 
     caused wholesale cuts in U.S. public investment. The Germans, 
     of course, yield to no one in their distaste for 
     indebtedness. But they also understand the distinction 
     between consumption and investment. By borrowing, they have 
     made investments whose future benefits will far outweigh 
     repayment costs. There's nothing foolhardy about that.
       The German experience suggests how Americans might move 
     past the stalled debate about economic stimulus policy. In 
     the aftermath of the financial crisis, the policy discussion 
     began with economists in broad agreement that unemployment 
     remained high because total spending was too low. Keynesian 
     stimulus proponents argued that temporary tax cuts and 
     additional government spending would bolster hiring. 
     Austerity advocates countered that additional government 
     spending would merely displace private spending and that 
     Americans already had too much debt in any event. And the 
     debate has languished there.
       A preponderance of evidence suggests that Keynes was right. 
     But as the German experience illustrates, progress is 
     possible without settling that question. The Germans are 
     investing in infrastructure, not to provide short-term 
     economic stimulus, but because those investments promise high 
     returns. Yet their undeniable side effect has been to bolster 
     employment substantially in the short run.
       Not all German public investments have met expectations. 
     Berlin's new consolidated airport, for example, has 
     experienced several delays and cost overruns, and parts of 
     the city's recently constructed central rail station will be 
     closed this autumn for major repairs. But private investment 
     projects undergo occasional setbacks, too, and no one argues 
     that businesses should stop investing on that account.
       The Germans didn't become bogged down in a debate over 
     stimulus policy, and they didn't explicitly portray their 
     infrastructure push as stimulus. But that didn't hamper their 
     strategy's remarkable effectiveness at putting people to 
     work. The unemployment rate in Germany, at 5.3 percent and 
     falling, is now substantially lower than that in the United 
     States, where it ticked up to 7.6 percent in May and held 
     there in June. (By contrast, in March 2007, before the 
     financial crisis, the rate in Germany was 9.2 percent, about 
     five percentage points higher than what it had been in the 
     United States.)
       A prudent investment is one whose future returns exceed its 
     costs--includIng interest costs, if the money is borrowed. 
     Opportunities meeting that standard abound in the 
     infrastructure domain. According to the American Society of 
     Civil Engineers, the United States has a backlog of about 
     $3.6 trillion in overdue infrastructure maintenance. No one 
     in Congress seriously proposes that the country just abandon 
     crumbling roads and bridges, and everyone agrees that the 
     repair cost will grow sharply the longer we wait.
       The case for accelerated infrastructure investment becomes 
     more compelling with the U.S. economy still in the doldrums. 
     That is because many of the needed workers and machines are 
     now idle. If the country waits, it will need to bid them away 
     from other tasks. Also because of the sluggish economy, the 
     materials required for the work are now relatively 
     inexpensive. If the country waits, they will cost more. And 
     long-term interest rates for the money to pay for the work 
     continue to hover near record lows. They, too, will be higher 
     if the country waits.
       Austerity advocates object that more deficit spending now 
     will burden grandchildren with crushing debt. That might be 
     true if the proposal were to build bigger houses and stage 
     more lavish parties with borrowed money--as Americans, in 
     fact, were doing in the first half of the past decade. But 
     the objection makes no sense when applied to long-overdue 
     infrastructure repairs. A failure to undertake that spending 
     will gratuitously burden the country's grandchildren.
       In 2009, austerity proponents in the United States argued 
     against stimulus, predicting that the economy would recover 
     quickly and spontaneously. It didn't. Later, they said the 
     country tried stimulus and it didn't work. But in the face of 
     a projected $2 trillion shortfall in the spending needed for 
     full employment, Congress enacted a stimulus bill totaling 
     only $787 billion, spread over three years. And much of that 
     injection was offset by cuts in state and local government 
     spending.
       Now austerity backers urge--preposterously--that 
     infrastructure repairs be postponed until government budgets 
     are in balance. But would they also tell an indebted family 
     to postpone fixing a leaky roof until it paid off all its 
     debts? Not only would the repair grow more costly with the 
     delay, but the water damage would mount in the interim. 
     Families should pay off debts, yes, but not in ways that 
     actually increase their indebtedness in the longer term.
       Austerity advocates, who have been wrong at virtually every 
     turn, are unlikely to change their minds about stimulus 
     policy. But with continued slow growth in the outlook, it's 
     time to re-frame the debate. The best available option, by 
     far, is to rebuild tattered infrastructure at fire-sale 
     prices. If the austerity crowd disagrees, it should explain 
     why in plain English.

          Highlights of 2014 Energy & Water Appropriations Act

       2014 mark: $30.426 billion.
       2014 budget request: $34.483 billion.
       2013 enacted (including Sandy reconstruction): $36.744 
     billion.
       2013 enacted (excluding Sandy reconstruction): $33.240 
     billion.
       The 2014 Energy & Water Appropriations Act would provide:
       $982.6 million for Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, 
     and Efficiency (not including a $157 million rescission to 
     2013 funding), which is $971 million less than the 2013 
     enacted level and $1.96 billion less than the President's 
     request for the same activities.
       $4.653 billion for the Department of Energy Office of 
     Science, which is $223 million less than the 2013 enacted 
     level and $499.8 million less than the President's request.
       $50 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--
     Energy (ARPA--E), which is $215 million less than the 2013 
     enacted level and $329 million less than the President's 
     request.
       $5.5 billion for environmental cleanup activities, which is 
     $243 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $133 
     million less than the President's request.
       $7.675 billion for Weapons Activities (not including a $142 
     million rescission), which is $97.7 million more than the 
     2013 enacted level and $193.4 million less than the 
     President's request.
       $2.1 billion for Nuclear Nonproliferation (not including a 
     $20 million rescission), which is $334 million less than the 
     2013 enacted level and $40 million less than the President's 
     request. The House bill also includes $245 million in 
     activities previously appropriated within the weapons 
     account, as requested by the Administration.
       $1.109 billion for Naval Reactors, which is $29 million 
     more than the 2013 enacted level and $137.1 million less than 
     the President's request.
       $4.876 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers (not 
     including a $200 million rescission), which is $104 million 
     less than the 2013 enacted level and $50 million more than 
     the President's request.
       $965 million for water resources projects within the 
     Department of Interior, which is $104 million less than the 
     2013 enacted level and $85 million less than the President's 
     request.


            Sequestration Impact on Energy & Water Accounts

       This bill fails to address the sequester, ensuring it will 
     harm our ability to meet energy and water needs next year, on 
     top of the following impacts that are already taking hold.

[[Page 11064]]

       Forgone hiring by Department of Energy of 300 full-time 
     employees; reduced contractor labor by estimated 1,200 
     employee-years through furloughs, layoffs, and hiring 
     deferrals; furlough of approximately 60 employee-years 
     affecting approximately 3,600 contractor employees; and 
     layoff or voluntary separation of more than 300 contractor 
     employees.
       Severe cuts to renewable energy and efficiency research, 
     including $16 million from advanced vehicle technologies, $14 
     million from solar energy, $10 million from biofuels, $5 
     million from wind, $3 million from hydropower, $3 million 
     from weatherization assistance, and $5 million from 
     electrical grid modernization.
       Cuts to Office of Science delaying or cancelling laboratory 
     construction, maintenance, and upgrades; and reducing math, 
     computing, physics, atmospheric, and cytogenics research at 
     labs and universities around the country.
       Cuts to Environmental Management resulting in furloughs, 
     terminated activity and forgone work at Hanford Site (WA), 
     Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Reservation (TN), 
     Savannah River Site (GA), and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
     (NM).

  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I rise to commend the Committee on 
Appropriations for its leadership in resolving the nuclear waste issue. 
This is certainly a very crucial issue for all Americans.
  Last year, I would remind us that the House voted 326-81 in favor of 
the Shimkus amendment to increase the bill's funding for Yucca Mountain 
license review. This year, the committee has once again reflected the 
will of the House not just by funding the license review, but also 
providing the Department of Energy the authority to transfer funds to 
the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's my understanding that 
this provision gives both DOE and the NRC the flexibility to make sure 
that the Yucca Mountain licensing case gets optimum resources, where 
needed, to make real progress in meeting our Nation's need for a safe 
repository to isolate our spent nuclear fuel and high-level defense 
waste.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from Michigan is correct: the 
Department of Energy would have the flexibility to transfer funds, as 
needed, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission either from funds 
appropriated in our bill or from funds previously appropriated for this 
purpose that remain unspent. This language would also allow the 
Department of Energy to reprogram funds and subsequently transfer them 
to the NRC for this purpose, if necessary, to ensure that no one could 
claim that access to adequate funds is a barrier to completing the 
review of the Yucca Mountain license application.
  Mr. UPTON. Well, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. This approach 
really does build on last year's momentum to get the job done.
  Consumers and taxpayers have paid over $15 billion--that's ``b'' as 
in ``big''--to find out whether Yucca Mountain would be a safe 
repository for civilian spent nuclear fuel and defense nuclear waste. 
They deserve an answer, yes, they do; and under this bill, they're 
going to get one.
  I commend all the members of the Appropriations Committee for this. 
And I would urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this appropriation bill 
for FY 2014 so that we can make additional resources available to 
perform the critical work.
  I yield again to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would 
also like to recognize his leadership on this issue as the chairman of 
the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has worked hard with his 
colleagues to ensure that the will of the people is heard. The 
administration must apply the law that Congress already enacted and get 
this job done.
  We look forward to working with the gentleman to get this 
appropriation enacted and to get this license wrapped up at the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
  Mr. UPTON. I just want to say again, I want to compliment you and 
your staff. This has been a major issue for us for a good number of 
years, something that needs to get done. I look forward to continuing 
that strong relationship as we look to the future.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, the dispatch with which the committee 
has moved forward made it not possible for me to offer the amendment 
that I was going to offer formally, but I just intend to deal with the 
issue very briefly for the committee and look forward to trying to work 
with the committee going forward.
  Six years ago, in section 2032 of WRDA 2007, Congress directed the 
President to issue a report describing the vulnerability of the United 
States to damage from flooding. In addition to examining the risk to 
public health and property, Congress instructed the President to 
undertake an assessment of existing programs to address flooding, the 
effectiveness of those programs, and recommendations about how to 
improve them. Unfortunately, despite almost daily reminders that we see 
about flooding in the news, this report has yet to be written.
  The President has requested funding for this study in its annual 
budget requests for the Corps of Engineers. The fiscal year 2014 budget 
calls this study a ``high priority evaluation of the Nation's 
vulnerability to inland and coastal flooding and of the effectiveness, 
efficiency, and accountability of existing programs and strategies.'' I 
agree. And the amendment that I would have offered would seek to 
provide funding for the Corps to finally undertake the study.
  The need is clear. Flooding is America's most common natural 
disaster. From 2002 to 2011, total flood insurance claims averaged more 
than $2.9 billion a year. Last month, a new FEMA report indicated that 
rising sea levels and increasingly severe weather are expected to 
increase the areas of the United States at risk by 45 percent by the 
end of this century.
  The Federal Government, led by FEMA and the Corps of Engineers, plays 
a significant role in flood damage reduction and emergency response. 
Reducing flood damage is one of the core missions of the Corps. It 
builds levees, floodwalls, shore protection projects, and restores 
natural floodplains. However, our current understanding of the actions 
necessary to reduce vulnerability to flooding and, therefore, reduce 
the amount that we spend to respond to flooding is lacking.
  If we could do this report, it would be very helpful. The Corps of 
Engineers spent $1.5 billion annually on flood control activities for 
the last decade, and Congress has provided over $26 billion in 
additional supplemental appropriations responding to flooding and other 
natural disasters over the same period.
  Despite massive expenditures on flood control, flood damages have 
increased at alarming rates. Long-term average flood damages are more 
than double what they were earlier this century. Obviously, we're not 
doing everything right.
  The cost of this study would only be $1 million. The Investigations 
program is being funded at $90 million. In order to reduce government 
spending, we need to know how much money we are continuing to throw at 
projects that may or may not help.
  I would hope that we could work with the committee to make sure that 
we have the best information available before the Corps commits to even 
more projects. I would hope that we could work to make sure that this 
comes to pass. It will make the job of the committee easier and will 
make a difference for Americans across the country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       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.


[[Page 11065]]

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The rapidity with which this process is moving, we 
might be dealing with the Transportation rather than the Energy and 
Water appropriations; therefore, my amendment apparently passed without 
an opportunity to present it.
  We just heard our colleague from Oregon speak to the issue of 
flooding. I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River, yet this bill 
ignores the need for this Congress to protect human life. This bill 
spends $7.67 billion on nuclear weapons and cuts the money for levee 
protection.
  Human life is at risk in my district, and yet this bill ignores the 
reality of flooding. When a flood occurs in my district, it's not in 
the summertime; it is not warm water. It is very, very cold water and 
thousands of lives are at risk. Yet the majority cannot seem to find 
the money necessary to protect human life, but plenty of money for 
nuclear weapons. Is this the priority, $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons 
and not enough money to protect the lives of the citizens of this 
Nation from real danger, real floods? It's really going to happen, 
gentlemen and ladies of the majority.
  The Corps of Engineers' budget is decimated, and for the last 3 years 
we have not been able to get one new project even though human life is 
at risk. Is that the priority? Apparently, human life is not.
  Projects in my district: the Hamilton project for the last 3 years 
has been in the President's budget, yet no New START prohibitions place 
us in a dangerous situation in my district. Apparently, we need more 
nuclear weapons but not more levees. Is that the majority's position? 
$7.6 billion for nuclear weapons, and not enough for a $15 million 
project to protect the citizens of Hamilton City. You should be ashamed 
that that's your priority.
  This particular appropriation bill is an abomination. It is a 
disgrace. It is a representation of the wrong priorities. But yet 
that's what you want to do. I suppose if this had not been a railroad 
and you weren't moving things so fast, I would have had an amendment 
opportunity to simply say that New START vital to the life and well-
being of citizens in this Nation should be in this bill, but I didn't 
have a chance to do that because of the railroad you're operating here.
  Run it as you will, but at the end of the day there will be human 
life at stake, at risk, and, quite likely--quite likely--floods in the 
200 miles of the Sacramento River and its tributary that I represent.
  This is wrongheaded. This is wrong. Your priorities could not be 
worse. You should be ashamed that this is the priority you put. Levees 
will not be built. Human life will be at risk. But, presumably, that's 
what you want.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I wonder, for those that don't come from your part of the 
country, Congressman Garamendi, talk about what it's like to face that 
possibility of nonrepair of the facilities that you are discussing.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their comments 
through the Chair.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I would be happy to address my comments through the 
Chair.
  Madam Chair, the priorities that are in this bill are dead wrong. 
Natomas in Sacramento, 20-foot potential water in the wintertime, with 
the water temperature somewhere in the 40 to 50 degree range, perhaps 
human life can last 10 minutes--maybe--but that's the priority.
  Hamilton City, the same situation. Yuba City, Marysville, the same 
situation. A winter storm in California and a levee break is deadly. 
This is not New Orleans, where you can stay in the water for a few 
hours. This is cold water temperature. And yet, Madam Chair, the 
majority's position is to build more nuclear weapons and not to build 
levees.

                              {time}  1445

  When the flood occurs, and it will, what will happen? Could we not 
take $100 million out of the nuclear weapons account and put it into 
the levees account in the Army Corps of Engineers? Apparently not.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Energy and 
Water appropriations bill on the floor, which I think appropriately 
reflects the need to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly in light of our 
current budgetary problems.
  Total funding in this bill represents a decrease of $2.9 billion 
below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $700 million below the 
post-sequester level. While funding is reduced, this bill still 
provides critical resources for important projects and programs that 
ensure our Nation continues to have access to affordable, reliable, and 
clean water and energy.
  The bill also provides much-needed funding for our country's flood 
control projects that are constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers. 
My own district, California's 42nd District, is home to the Santa Ana 
River Mainstem project, which is one of the largest Corps projects west 
of the Mississippi River. I am pleased that the Corps and the Energy 
and Water Subcommittee continue to recognize the project's importance 
to providing adequate flood protection to the southern California 
region.
  Additionally, in southern California, we recently lost 2,200 
megawatts of power generation with the permanent shutdown of the San 
Onofre nuclear power plant. A significant generation shutdown of this 
nature creates tremendous uncertainty for ratepayers through our 
region.
  Of course, energy production challenges are by no means exclusive to 
southern California. That is exactly why the energy programs funded in 
this bill are necessary. I am particularly pleased that our 
subcommittee has funded energy programs by taking an all-of-the-above 
approach that includes renewable, nuclear, and fossil fuels.
  Americans rightfully expect affordable access to clean, affordable, 
and reliable energy and water. As a member of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee, I believe we have done our best to meet those 
expectations with this bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  In closing, I just want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Frelinghuysen, 
as well as Chairman Rogers, for their leadership and crafting a good, 
responsible bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I would just like to raise an issue here with 
the amount of money in this bill that we are appropriating for the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers construction account. I have heard several of 
my colleagues here speak earlier on individual projects in their 
districts that affect their constituencies, and I am totally in 
agreement with that on both sides of the aisle.
  But I do want to acknowledge the priority that should be recognized 
in this bill, and that is recognizing the impacts of these large 
coastal storms. I happen to represent the port of Boston and the 
community south of Boston along the south shore; a beautiful area that 
has a great number of towns with great history there. While they were 
not affected to the degree that New York and New Jersey were during 
Hurricane Sandy--Superstorm Sandy--a lot of their infrastructure was 
damaged to the point of near collapse. So there is a great need for 
seawall reconstruction. They withstood that impact. They did the job 
that they were intended to do at the time that they were constructed. 
But I feel that this bill in

[[Page 11066]]

its current form continues to undermine the ability of the Army Corps 
of Engineers to keep pace with the needed maintenance and 
reconstruction of our infrastructure.
  I just want to call to mind the whole initiative here and what our 
priorities should be. We are, in many cases across the country, the 
beneficiaries of people who came before us and made the necessary 
investments in infrastructure. They saw the need, and we today, and up 
to today, have enjoyed a competitive advantage against some of our 
international neighbors because our infrastructure is there.
  There is a definite increase in the number of these catastrophic 
storms. It seems like in my area we have 100-year storms every 3 or 4 
years now. There is definitely something going on with climate change 
and the intensity of these storms.
  It seems appropriate that we try to recognize the need here. I notice 
we are putting an awful lot of money into fossil fuel research and not 
nearly enough money to recognize the impact that climate change has 
already had on a lot of our coastal areas. We should be reinvesting in 
that infrastructure so that we are not faced with the total collapse 
that we saw in New York and New Jersey with Superstorm Sandy.
  I just would call on my colleagues across the aisle in a request for 
bipartisanship and for recognizing the long-term interests of Americans 
across the country, Democrats and Republicans, and making sure that we 
use a commonsense approach in this bill. I think that we are off course 
with respect to the defunding of the construction account for the Army 
Corps of Engineers, not just for my district--I'm not saying that just 
for the communities that I represent who do have considerable need 
because of recent storms--I'm talking about all across the country. I'm 
talking about Republican districts as well as Democratic districts.
  We have a wonderful organization here in the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. They do fantastic jobs. We get more than our money's worth. 
We put $1 into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and we get $5 back or 
$7 back, depending on the project. I think it is just wise stewardship 
to make sure they have the resources necessary to perform the 
reconstruction in some cases and maintenance in other cases of the 
seawalls along the east and west coast to make sure that we are indeed 
prepared for these storms that are inevitably coming.
  I have an amendment later on at the appropriate time in this bill 
where I will be asking for additional money for the construction 
account of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, this is a fiscally responsible bill. It 
cuts $2.9 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and it is 
$4.1 billion below the President's request. That is an impressive 
achievement working in this very difficult fiscal environment that we 
are in today.
  What I really find impressive about the bill and the work that's been 
done by the subcommittee chairman and the chairman and the 
Appropriations Committee is the fact that this bill sets some very good 
priorities. In fact, there is $2 billion for navigation projects and 
studies to advance American competitiveness in our ability to export, 
which is critical for growth in the U.S. economy.
  It includes $1 billion of appropriation from the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund. This is a record level. This is $200 million more than what 
we saw in fiscal year 2013, something that is absolutely critical, 
because we know that our Federal ports, our harbors, are essential if 
we are going to be able to ship goods overseas. Getting the dredging 
funds is absolutely necessary because we lose economic efficiency. In 
fact, on the Mississippi River, every time we lose a foot of draft it 
is about $1 million per ship, per day, in lost economic activity.
  If we are going to get this economy growing, create value, create 
jobs, we have to export. To export, we have to have the waterways that 
allow us to do that. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, nearly 
1,000 Federal ports and harbors have not been adequately maintained due 
to inadequate budgetary allocations over time.
  This bill now takes a strong step forward to correct that. I want to 
thank Chairman Rogers for this encouraging step forward for bringing 
attention to the fact that America's infrastructure--its ports, its 
locks, its dams, its inland waterways--are old and have not received 
the appropriate investment and have often been ignored. It has cost us 
time, it has cost us money, it has cost us economic growth, and it has 
cost us jobs.
  Clearly, if we are expanding these trade agreements, looking at the 
Pacific with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, looking at a transatlantic 
agreement, we have to have our ports, our harbors, our waterways 
working at maximum efficiency if we are going to grow this economy.
  Also, I want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee and full 
committee as well for including language from my colleague, Congressman 
Rodney Alexander. This is language included in the bill requiring the 
Department of Energy to report on its plans to address the backlog of 
natural gas export applications, liquefied natural gas export 
applications, and to encourage the timely completion of this approval 
process.
  Given the fact that so many of these applicants have been waiting for 
well over a year to get a decision from the Department of Energy, it is 
just unacceptable to have this kind of a backlog at a time when this is 
going to help us expand trade, help improve our trade deficit, it will 
help create jobs, it will help us with--actually, interestingly, help 
stabilize the price of natural gas so we will see more drilling, and 
help our energy security in the long-run.
  So expediting this process, getting the Department of Energy to be 
held to account on the backlog of these permits is critically important 
because these companies have invested millions of dollars in this 
permitting process. To be sitting in limbo is just simply unacceptable.
  I am very, very happy that Congressman Alexander's language has been 
included in this base bill, and I want to thank the chairman for doing 
this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, a few moments ago, I talked about 
priorities; $7.6 billion plus for nuclear weapons.
  We just heard the gentleman discuss the issue of locks and levees and 
ports, projects in my district for the ports, for deepening the 
channels, for rebuilding and expanding. The economic activity in this 
Nation is not going to be funded.
  Do we really need to spend an additional $7.6 billion-plus on nuclear 
weapons when we have over 8,000 of them--Russia 7,000, China 250--do we 
really need to spend the money there, or do we need to spend it on our 
economic activity, as the gentleman just said?
  There is not enough money in the Corps of Engineers' budget to 
provide for all of the ports, all of the improvements that are needed, 
so that our ports on the west coast, the east coast, gulf coast can be 
competitive. Apparently, we have enough money.
  Why don't we take some money out of this program and put it where it 
will be immediately beneficial? It's a matter of priorities. Where your 
money is is where your heart is. Okay. That's not where my heart is.
  You talked about all-of-the-above energy. We ought to talk about all-
of-the-above energy. Yet, ARPA-E, where we create the new science, the 
new technology, the new programs that will provide us with new energy 
sources, improved energy sources, and the improvement of all energy 
sources--gutted, gutted; an 87 percent reduction.

[[Page 11067]]

The Office of Science, where we do real research, where we really can 
do all-of-the-above, whether it is coal or oil or renewables--gutted; a 
73 percent reduction.
  Where are our priorities? Where are the priorities of the House of 
Representatives? Is it to build more nuclear weapons that by the grace 
of God we will never use--8,000 of them? Or is it to build a levee? Or 
is it to make sure the researchers at our universities and laboratories 
have the money that they need to really deal with the problem of the 
future, which is climate change?

                              {time}  1500

  It's about priorities.
  Madam Chair, it's about priorities, and through you, of course, I ask 
my colleagues: What are the priorities? They are listed very clearly in 
your legislation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would just like to reclaim a couple of seconds here and 
place on the record that, as to the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
gentleman is correct. If we look back to the years 2011 and 2012, the 
bills terminated or suspended over 300 projects across this country. 
That is not an insignificant number. That is a very significant number. 
It's one of the reasons that we weren't able to put in New START, 
because we've got so many other wounded and casualties standing in 
line, waiting for assistance across the country, including the 
communities you represent.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
  I might just point out that, with sequestration this year, we took 
$250 million out of the Corps of Engineers' budget, so we're building 
on a lower base. This is going to be tragedy and tragic--but, Madam 
Chair, these are our priorities. Oh, excuse me. These are not my 
priorities. These are the majority's priorities.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity 
to come down and speak about a very important issue that I know is 
important to you as well as to myself.
  The Great Lakes are facing a crisis right now. The Great Lakes 
Navigation System is a critical international waterway that extends 
from the western part of Lake Superior. In fact, that point in the 
western part of Lake Superior is further west than St. Louis, 
Missouri--the Gateway to the West--and it extends all the way along the 
Saint Lawrence Seaway to the Atlantic Ocean, which is a distance of 
over 2,400 miles.
  The U.S. portion of the system includes 140 harbors, 60 of which are 
deemed as commercial and 80 as recreational and harbors of refuge, and 
it includes over 600 miles of maintained navigation channels. The 
system can handle 200 million tons of cargo that generate and sustain 
nearly 130,000 good-paying jobs in the eight Great Lakes States, not to 
mention what happens to our friends to the north and east and in the 
Canadian provinces and how important that relationship is with the 
trade that goes on. While the Army Corps of Engineers' national 
Operations and Maintenance account has increased by 20 percent from 
1995 through 2012, the annual budget for the Corps' maintenance of 
harbors and navigation channels in the Great Lakes has remained 
virtually unchanged during that same period.
  We all know of the challenges we are facing as a Nation financially--
fiscally--but that, Madam Chair, does not seem right or fair to me, and 
it certainly is not an acknowledgment of the importance of the Great 
Lakes to our vital economy.
  There are 18 million cubic yards of sediment right now clogging the 
Great Lakes' ports and waterways, which has reduced the amount of cargo 
shipped by over 500,000 tons over the course of the navigation season. 
To put this number into context, I own a gravel pit. I have dump trucks 
that go out and around. A normal-sized, standard dump truck is 10 
yards. To put it in context, 18 million yards of sediment would be like 
1.8 million dump truck loads of sediment that is out there right now.
  In fiscal year '12, the Corps received $45 million for maintenance 
dredging and $95 million for navigation structure maintenance in the 
Great Lakes, but it's going to cost more than $200 million to restore 
ports and waterways to what their designed depths and widths are. In 
order to make up that shortfall, the State of Michigan recently 
authorized over $20 million--State funds only--in emergency dredging 
funds to ensure that commerce, tourism, and jobs remained available in 
port cities, big and small.
  I commend the State of Michigan. However, the Federal Government has 
a constitutional requirement to maintain interstate commerce through 
those ports in and among the States as well as internationally. The 
funds that come from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are paid for as 
a user fee of 0.125 percent on the value of cargo shipped. In the 
previous year, that equated to $1.7 billion which was paid into the 
fund, but only $804 million was used for the dredging and maintenance 
of our harbors because the trust fund, frankly, has been raided over 
the years to pay for other projects and unrelated projects sometimes.
  I would like to thank my colleague for working towards a solution to 
this problem by reprioritizing spending, which is really what this is 
all about. We know that we have to reprioritize and reflect a $1 
billion disbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to the bill 
and encourage funding in the future.
  I know that there is some specific language. Madam Chair, had I been 
able to have been down here, I would have offered an amendment that 
would have clarified our making sure that $30 million that is put in 
for small ports and subsistence ports would have been more clear. In 
the meantime, we must act before the crisis in the Great Lakes grows 
worse.
  So I thank my friend from New Jersey for the work that he has done on 
this bill. While I would prefer more clarity, I am satisfied with the 
intent of the committee to help our ports, big and small.
  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 want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
being a strong advocate for sufficiently maintaining his waterways and 
the Nation's waterways. These ports and channels are very important, 
not only to the Great Lakes' economy, but to our national economy, and 
I want to commend him for his attention to the needs of his 
constituents. He is extremely knowledgeable from a professional point 
of view and certainly as a Member of Congress, who voted to the needs 
of his constituents.
  The committee has heard from many Members, including from those from 
the Great Lakes, who are concerned that the administration's budget 
processing has left small, remote, subsistence ports across the Nation 
unable to continue to conduct business due to inadequate or oftentimes 
nonexistent maintenance. These are what prompted the committee to 
include a minimum of $30 million to be made available to such ports. 
The Great Lakes' ports will certainly be eligible for this funding. I 
believe our bill addresses his concerns to the greatest priority 
possible in light of other priorities which he mentioned in our bill, 
which are, obviously, balancing the Federal budget and controlling 
spending.
  I want to thank our colleague for bringing the concerns of the Great 
Lakes' ports to our attention. We will do our level best to work with 
the gentleman. We honor his request.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       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

[[Page 11068]]

     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.  Not later than 120 days after 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 
     (Public Law 110-114; 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.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania

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

       Page 10, line 21, after the period insert the following: 
     ``Further, the Army Corps of Engineers, in coordination with 
     the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     the National Park Service, and the United States Geological 
     Survey, shall lead a multiagency effort to slow the spread of 
     Asian Carp in the Ohio River basin and tributaries by 
     providing high-level technical assistance, coordination, best 
     practices, and support to State and local government 
     strategies to slow, and eventually eliminate, the threat 
     posed by Asian Carp. To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     multiagency effort shall apply lessons learned and best 
     practices such as those developed under the Management and 
     Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver Carps in 
     the United States, November 2007, and the Asian Carp Control 
     Strategic Framework.''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, part of the district that I 
represent is Lake Erie. I also have the Ohio River Watershed. My 
amendment would have allowed the Army Corps to combat the Asian carp in 
the Ohio River.
  There are over 30 States affected by Asian carp, and this invasive 
fish is already throughout the Midwest. This is about protecting our 
regional economy, the fishing industry, and the livelihoods of all of 
us who rely on the water for our jobs.
  This invasive species significantly alters the habitat. It crowds out 
native fish, and it is also a threat to boaters. I've worked very 
closely with Senator Toomey, with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 
Commission, as well as with legislators who represent that potentially 
affected area, to both study and develop plans of action to deal with 
this invasive species. This is what we understand:
  Under just one measure, the Great Lakes fisheries generate U.S. 
economic activity of approximately $7 billion annually, and our native 
fish populations, like walleye, perch, and lake herring, would be 
devastated by the Asian carp establishment, threatening this industry 
and the livelihoods of all of those who depend on this ecosystem's 
health.
  I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to bring this 
forward, and I hope, in the future, we can take a look at it.
  Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I seek to identify my side with the 
gentleman's remarks on the importance of the Asian carp issue to the 
freshwater lakes of our country and certainly to Lake Erie. He and I 
share that. The lake is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is the 
largest fishery in the entire Great Lakes system, which contains 20 
percent of the world's fresh surface water, and Lake Erie actually has 
more fish than all of the other Great Lakes combined.
  Honestly, this Asian carp threat is truly a nightmare for those 
people and the multibillion-dollar industries--the maritime industry, 
our fisheries, our tourism centers. I especially appreciate the 
gentleman's desire to have a multiagency effort and more dispatch 
within the executive branch to deal with the possibility of these fish, 
these very destructive fish, coming in and destroying our perch, our 
walleye--our native fish. It is a very, very worrisome invasive species 
to our lakes.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I want to thank you very much for your 
comments. The gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) is also very 
aware of this.
  I think all of us who represent the Great Lakes area understand the 
danger that this fish is bringing into our Great Lakes and into the 
fishing industry. It is unbelievable the amount of damage that's being 
done, not only to the fishing industry, but also to boaters. For 
anybody who has seen film, this is a fish that actually comes out of 
the water and goes after boaters. It gets very easily aggravated. Now, 
you don't have to have a motor on the boat--you can be paddling the 
boat--and this fish will come out of the water and hit people. I have 
seven grandchildren whom I take out with me from time to time. The 
oldest one is 8 years old. These are small people. This fish is 70 
pounds when it reaches its full maturity. It is a voracious eater. It 
is going to totally take over the Great Lakes, and it will ruin our 
fishing industry.
  So I can't tell you how much I appreciate your comments and your 
concern. Also, I know this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. 
This is an American issue that has to be looked into, and I thank you 
very much for your comments.
  Ms. KAPTUR. In reclaiming my time, I have the desire to work with the 
gentleman in any way possible.
  Literally, the gentleman is right. This fish is like a guided missile 
except there are millions of them, and until you actually see it 
happen, you don't believe it. It's like some kind of movie--``The 
Twilight Zone''--except it's real. It came from the aquaculture 
industry down in Mississippi, which had an accident, and they brought 
these fish in to do the cleaning in the fish tanks. Yet, when the walls 
were breached, they started swimming north in the Mississippi River, 
and now they are about 30 miles from the Chicago harbor and through the 
ship canal there. They are about 30 miles from there, but they're 
coming up into the St. Joseph River in Indiana. They've caught some 
there. We don't know about the Ohio River, but the Maumee River, which 
I represent--the largest river that flows into the Great Lakes--is a 
spawning area for walleye, for example, and this species is really a 
predator, one that could wipe out our entire multibillion-dollar 
fishing industry in the Great Lakes.

                              {time}  1515

  There is no scientific solution at this point. So I hope the 
administration is hearing us. I hope the Army Corps and the Department 
of the Interior and others are hearing us. Our country needs a real 
solution to prevent the spread of this predator into our freshwater 
lakes, and it is an unsolved challenge for the Nation.
  So I thank the gentleman so much for coming to the floor today. You 
have my full support. I know the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 
Frelinghuysen, will work with us in any way possible.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 106.  As of the date of enactment of this Act and each 
     fiscal year hereafter, the Secretary of the Army may transfer 
     to the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service may accept and expend, such funds as the Secretary 
     and the Director

[[Page 11069]]

     of the Fish and Wildlife Service determine to be necessary to 
     mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers 
     projects, except that in no event may the amount of funds 
     transferred pursuant to this section during any fiscal year 
     exceed the amount identified for such purpose in the report 
     accompanying the appropriations for that fiscal year.
       Sec. 107.  None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development may be used by the Corps of Engineers to develop, 
     adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any change to the 
     regulations and guidance in effect on October 1, 2012, 
     pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.), including the provisions of the rules dated November 
     13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating to such jurisdiction, 
     and the guidance documents dated January 15, 2003, and 
     December 2, 2008, relating to such jurisdiction.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Moran

  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, 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 11, beginning on line 8, strike section 107.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, I just want to say Asian carp, is a very 
troubling situation. In fact, we've got the snakeheads in this part of 
the country that can walk on dry land from river to river and pond to 
pond. Something's happening, and it's not good. But I'm glad that the 
issue was raised.
  Madam Chairwoman, I do have an amendment with our colleague, John 
Dingell. The amendment simply strikes section 107 of this bill. The 
reason for doing that is that section 107 would prevent the Corps of 
Engineers from updating regulations and guidance defining what waters 
and wetlands are subject to the Clean Water Act.
  Even though everyone, including the building industry, agrees there's 
confusion regarding what waters fall under Federal jurisdiction, 
section 107 would deliberately continue this confusion. In fact, many 
private commercial interests have gone on record in support of 
clarifying the term ``waters of the United States,'' but that 
clarification would be prohibited under section 107 of this bill.
  Madam Chairwoman, there have been two Supreme Court cases on this 
subject: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County in 2001 and Rapanos 
in 2006. Combined, these two rulings have created confusion and 
uncertainty regarding the limits of the Federal jurisdiction under the 
Clean Water Act. In layman's terms, the Court called into question the 
Federal Government's jurisdiction the further away the water was from 
where you could float a boat all year long. In both cases, though, a 
majority of the Court could not agree on where Federal jurisdiction 
should end. Intermittent streams and rivers that only flow seasonally, 
are they under Federal jurisdiction? Sixty percent of all stream miles 
in the lower 48 States fall into the category of intermittent or 
ephemeral; in other words, they don't exist for some part of the year, 
yet they receive 40 percent of all individual wastewater discharges.
  Even more importantly, more than 117 million Americans get some of 
their drinking water from these very streams that don't flow year 
round. Section 107 of this bill, though, would ensure that these 
sources of drinking water remain at increased risk of pollution. And 
with rising temperatures, more severe droughts and climate change, the 
protection of our waters and wetlands are a greater concern than ever. 
That's why I mentioned the Asian carp and the snakeheads. Extreme 
things are happening, but the most important thing that's happening is 
that climate change is creating a very extreme threat to every 
American, and we're seeing it in bodies of water across the country.
  Before my colleague suggests that we shouldn't worry about climate 
change, that the States have authority in the absence of Federal 
authority, I should tell my friends that that argument doesn't hold 
water in States that use the Federal definition to run their program. 
Forty-eight States share common water bodies. Without Federal 
jurisdiction, no State can tell an upstream State what to do unless we 
have a baseline minimum Federal standard that all States must abide by.
  Through a public comment process and appropriate congressional 
oversight, we can allow the administration to finalize its guidance and 
eventually move forward on a formal rulemaking process, or Congress 
could define navigable water ourselves. But why would this Congress do 
its job when it can complain about the administration not doing its 
job?
  Madam Chairwoman, 2 years ago, the Court and EPA issued a draft 
guidance to provide additional clarity on this issue. They took public 
comment on the draft for 90 days and received over 230,000 comments on 
the guidance, comments that were overwhelmingly favorably. The draft 
guidance provides a more predictable and consistent procedure for 
identifying waters and wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act. It 
focuses on protecting smaller waterways that keep downstream water safe 
from upstream pollutants and on protecting adjacent wetlands that 
filter pollution and store waters and help keep communities safe from 
floods. The guidance also maintains all of the existing exemptions for 
agricultural discharges and identifies specific types of water bodies 
to which it does not apply, areas like artificial lakes and ponds and 
many types of drainage and irrigation ditches.
  It does not extend Federal protection to any waters not historically 
protected under the Clean Water Act, and it's fully consistent with the 
law and the decisions and instructions of the Supreme Court. So I think 
we should let the administration go forward, provide greater clarity, 
and we can only do that by striking section 107.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment to strike section 107 of the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill.
  Section 107 prohibits the Corps of Engineers from developing, 
adopting, implementing, administrating, or enforcing any change to the 
Corps and EPA rules and guidance defining the waters of the United 
States. This provision is aimed at the so-called ``guidance'' which the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers have 
developed to expand the extent of waters covered by the Clean Water 
Act. This so-called guidance goes far beyond merely clarifying the 
scope of waters subject to the Clean Water Act programs. This guidance 
has been sitting around for nearly 3 years and is acting as de facto 
law.
  By the agency's own admission, the guidance would substantially 
change Federal policy with respect to which waters fall under the 
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and significantly increase the 
scope of the Federal Government's power to regulate waters and land 
associated with those waters.
  The effect of the guidance will be to reverse the decisions by the 
United States Supreme Court that recognized limits to the Federal 
Government's regulatory authority and to undermine the longstanding 
Federal-State partnership in the regulation of waters. This expansion 
has resulted in confusion, permitting delays, and added costs and 
burdens for communities, farmers, small businessmen, industries, and 
other Americans.
  The administration has issued this so-called ``guidance'' and has 
refused to go to the rulemaking process, which violates the principles 
of the Administrative Procedures Act, the APA, and the intent of 
Congress when they enacted the law. The APA sets the standards for the 
activities and rulemaking for all Federal regulatory agencies and is 
designed to ensure those Federal agencies use open, uniform, and fair 
procedures. The requirements of the APA are not mere formalities.
  In unilaterally developing its guidance, the administration has 
ignored calls from the State agencies and environmental groups, as well 
as Members

[[Page 11070]]

of Congress, including almost half the Members of the House of 
Representatives, to proceed through the normal rulemaking procedures 
and has avoided consulting with the States, which are the Federal 
agency partners, in implementing the Clean Water Act.
  This amendment condones the administration's willingness to ignore 
the requirements of the APA and supports the administration's Federal 
jurisdictional power grab under the Clean Water Act.
  I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairwoman, if you like confusion, keep the status 
quo and oppose the amendment.
  If you want to get clarity and you want to understand and you want to 
get investment and progress and if you want to have people understand 
what the law is, support the amendment.
  The proposal that has been put forward by the Corps of Engineers is 
clarity itself. It does not change the decision wrongly made by the 
Supreme Court, no matter how much I might dislike that decision. What 
it does is it allows people to know what the law is as set forth by the 
Supreme Court. Foreclosing the Corps of Engineers from carrying out its 
proper responsibilities under the law going back before 1899 is an act 
of extraordinary unwisdom and stupidity. My colleagues on the other 
side do not understand the issue. The simple fact of the matter is all 
this does is to allow the Corps of Engineers to tell the people of the 
United States what the law is with regard to what is navigable waters 
that may be affected by pollution, ditching, draining, and doing other 
things.
  So when you vote to strike this section, you are not changing the 
law; you are allowing the Corps of Engineers to set forth what the 
rules happen to be, and you're allowing the Supreme Court to bring 
clarity to the decisionmaking of the United States and seeing to it 
that people may then go forward and invest and do the other things that 
are necessary in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, which 
again, I repeat, is not changed, not by the amendment which is offered 
by my friend from Virginia.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by Mr. Moran of 
Virginia because it brings clarity to a confused situation, and it 
makes plain and apparent what the law is.
  So if you want to get progress so that people will know how they're 
going to invest in doing things that affect their property and the 
waters of the United States, supporting the amendment is the way to do 
it; and failing to support the amendment is to ensure that confusion 
will continue to exist and that businesses, industry, and the 
communities of the United States that need to act upon the waters to 
see to it that they are protected and that they are preserved, you're 
seeing to it by opposing the amendment that that cannot be done.
  The Supreme Court was wrong in the decision which they made. I was 
here on the floor when we agreed that the navigable waters are all of 
the waters of the United States. The Supreme Court was either too 
ignorant or too lazy to bother reading that particular debate, but the 
legislative history of the law is clear. And I repeat, this does not 
move us back to the old way, and it does not change the unfortunate 
decision of the Supreme Court. What it does is it ensures that for the 
first time since this kind of amendment was offered on the floor, that 
we are able to finally begin to move forward to deal with the law as it 
affects navigability, the Clean Water Act, and the other things which 
are so important both to protecting our waters and to ensuring that 
business and industry may invest with a clear understanding of what the 
law is.
  To oppose this amendment is to ensure that there will be more 
litigation, which will cause more obfuscation and delay and more 
difficulty in terms of achieving our purpose of having American 
citizens be able to enjoy the water in accordance with the law as the 
Corps of Engineers will set it out so that everyone will know what the 
law is rather than the Congress stultifying the law and seeing to it 
that we're incapable of having a clear pronouncement of what the law is 
as made by the agency which has the responsibility to do so under the 
law.

                              {time}  1530

  I urge you to support the amendment. I urge you to strike section 
107, and I urge you to get this country going forward on a very 
important matter which is being thoroughly obfuscated by a lot of 
people who know nothing about the matter. I urge adoption of the 
amendment and the striking of the section.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Madam 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 and explained the intent of the Conference Report on the Clean 
Water Act. 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 narrow technical sense 
we sometimes see in some laws.''
  In 2006, the Supreme Court wrongly restricted the original 
Congressional intent of the Federal government's authority under the 
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 review the facts.
  But the issue before us today is not 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?
  Under the law, our 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.
  In light of the Supreme Court's misguided decision, the Army Corps of 
Engineers is working on updated 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 you believe. This is simply attempting 
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 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 likely lead to more costs on that 
homeowner or businessperson in legal and court fees. The language in 
this bill would certainly lead to more court battles and create a 
wonderful mess that would lead to lawyers making plenty of money.
  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.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, Mr. Moran and I have had this discussion 
six or seven times on this very amendment over the past few years; and, 
once again, I rise to oppose it. Contrary to what the gentleman from 
Michigan just said, I do understand the issue; and, frankly, 
understanding it is why I am opposed to it.
  In 2006, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA and the Corps of 
Engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters 
under the Clean Water Act. Now, you might disagree with that Supreme 
Court decision. Tough luck. They made the decision, and we follow the 
decisions of the Supreme Court.

[[Page 11071]]

  In accordance with this decision, the term ``navigable waters'' has 
long been the phrase used to limit Federal intrusion with regard to the 
Clean Water Act's authority. Nonnavigable waters are currently 
regulated by the States. Everybody who stands up and talks assumes that 
if it is a nonnavigable water that nobody is regulating it. In fact, 
the States are regulating those things.
  However, last year the Corps of Engineers and the EPA issued guidance 
that would expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to 
nonnavigable, intrastate waters, effectively resulting in a massive 
expansion of the Federal Government's authority to increase the number 
of waters subject to the water quality standards--including irrigation 
canals, ponds, drainage ditches, and other things.
  Deciding how water is used should be the responsibility of State and 
local officials who are familiar with the people and local issues. If 
all intrastate waters are regulated by the Federal Government, the 
language could be broadly interpreted to include everything within a 
State, including groundwater.
  As a result, the reach of the Federal jurisdiction would be so broad 
that it could significantly restrict landowners' ability to make 
decisions about their own property and local government's ability to 
plan for their own development.
  The language in the bill protects the authority of the States to 
prevent the Army Corps from expanding its regulations to include 
intrastate bodies of water under the Clean Water Act for any reason 
other than drinking water standards.
  Clarity is needed on this issue, and the gentleman from Michigan 
mentioned clarity. But I will tell you, clarity simply for clarity's 
sake is not an answer. Death is a clarity. It's not necessarily the 
outcome you want, though.
  So doing this just so you have clarity in it is not the right 
direction to go. Congress does need to provide that clarity, but not 
the agencies through the regulatory process. The Supreme Court has 
already determined that the Army Corps does not have the authority to 
do what it is proposing, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I hope to provide some clarity to this by 
quoting directly from the guidance that the agency has given us. Now, 
it's important to remember that this is guidance, not a rule. The Obama 
administration, President Obama has repeatedly and proudly said that if 
Congress won't act, he will. Last week he said he was going to stand up 
and, through executive order, do all that he can to try to bring carbon 
emissions under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and try to 
restrict CO2 by executive order.
  Here the Obama administration is doing what the law says it can't do, 
and that is expand the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Army Corps by 
guidance, not by using a rule. The law says they have to issue a rule, 
get public input, have hearings. Here they simply got a bunch of their 
lawyers together and issued guidance to their agencies around the 
country. And to quote directly from the guidance, the Obama 
administration directs:
  The agencies to interpret waters in the region to be the watershed 
boundary defined by the geographic area that drains to the nearest 
downstream traditional navigable water or interstate water through a 
single point of entry.
  The geographic boundary, every stream, every rivulet, no matter how 
vertical it is, the Supreme Court and the statute said the EPA is 
limited to regulating navigable waters. The way this reads, literally, 
the EPA and the Army Corps now, through this guidance, have the 
authority to regulate every single stream of water that drains in the 
geographic area, in the watershed boundary, that drains to the nearest 
traditional navigable water.
  That is an incredible expansion of Federal power. As the gentleman 
from Idaho quite correctly said, this was done outside of the normal 
rulemaking process because the Obama administration knew that the 
public would overwhelmingly disapprove of this, that the Congress would 
disapprove of this, that this goes beyond what the Supreme Court 
intended, that this goes beyond what the law allows, so they did it 
through the back door using lawyers and bureaucrats to write a 33-page 
document that you literally have to go to the back end of to learn that 
they are attempting to exercise jurisdiction over every stream of water 
in the geographic area that drains to the nearest navigable waterway.
  That's why Chairman Frelinghuysen and Chairman Rogers included this 
language to cut off funding for the implementation of this rule, 
because we've discovered that the Obama administration will do whatever 
they want, regardless of the Constitution. They ignore subpoenas. They 
ignore congressional hearings. They ignore letters from Congress. They 
ignore everything except when you cut off the money. That's the only 
way to make the Obama administration follow the law.
  Vote against this amendment to ensure that the Obama administration 
follows the law and that we protect private property rights and keep 
the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers off of people's private 
property across America. I urge Members to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment. I have 
been listening to the debate and thinking we're a great Nation because 
we figured out how to build a nation. We had 13 Colonies. And then, 
miraculously, somehow, through the Northwest Ordinance and other means, 
we added more States and we figured out where their boundaries were. 
Sadly, Michigan and Ohio had to fight a little war on a piece of 
territory between us, but we even got that figured out. Then, golly, 
you know, we sort of expanded. Even Alaska became a State. As we became 
more adult as a Nation, we figured out where the watersheds were. We 
even have maps for watersheds in our country. We've always been a 
country that is a can-do Nation, not a can't-do Nation.
  So I believe the amendment takes America in an important direction by 
allowing the Corps the needed flexibility to deal with real confusion 
that has reigned in the wake of two Supreme Court decisions and, 
frankly, climate change. As water distribution changes around our 
country, we are moving into a different era, if anybody cares to open 
their eyes and look at what is happening across our country.
  Without this amendment, the bill would result in increased 
implementation costs to Federal and State resource agencies, as well as 
to the regulated community, increased delays in the implementation of 
important public works projects, and protracted litigation on the 
disparity between existing Federal regulations and the two court 
decisions.
  Further, the current provision does not apply to just this year; it 
applies to any subsequent energy and water development act, ensuring 
the uncertainty continues indefinitely.
  How is that good for anything? Why is can't do better than can do?
  Let's provide clarity. Let's provide some certainty to the market. We 
should be allowing the Corps to take actions that address the Supreme 
Court's rulings, bringing clarity and certainty to the regulatory 
process, not prolonging the confusion, further delay, further 
uncertainty. How does that help anything, regardless of what region of 
the country you live in? I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VALADAO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 11072]]


  Mr. VALADAO. This amendment puts a lot of my district in jeopardy. My 
district relies heavily on irrigation and canals and other types of 
water projects. When you see a government agency, an unelected 
government agency come in and take jurisdiction without any of us in 
this body, 435 Members in this body who have a responsibility to 
represent our constituents and make sure that their voices are heard, 
when you take that power away and you give it to a bureaucracy in the 
dark of night where there's not an opportunity to speak their minds and 
have their voices heard, you set up a pretty bad precedent.
  When you look at a constituency that feeds the country like we do in 
California on my part of the valley, we do feed a good portion of the 
country. We grow 350 different crops. We produce a lot of beef, 
poultry, and pork. All of these different products go to feed the 
Nation.
  When you look at an idea like this which a lot of my constituents or 
most of my constituents all oppose, we're setting up for a really bad 
idea. So this should be presented and it should be talked about amongst 
the 435, not one agency, not one President pushing an idea. So, 
obviously, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by 
my friend from Virginia, and I do so for three reasons, and I believe 
that the previous speakers on our side have listed these reasons, but I 
wanted to just drive these points. There are three of them.
  Number one, it does cede a tremendous amount of power to the 
executive branch. It is clear that this administration prefers to 
bypass Congress every chance it gets and cede things to an unelected 
bureaucracy. And in this case, this is a tremendous decision that the 
bureaucracy would be making instead of the elected representatives in 
the House and the Senate.
  Mr. Culberson actually quoted part of it. He said that the agencies 
will interpret in the regions such proximate other waters to be the 
watershed boundary defined by the geographic area that drains to the 
nearest downstream navigational or interstate water through a single 
point of entry.
  So in my district where we have the Savannah River and the St. Mary's 
River, the Ogeechee River, the Altamaha River and the Ohoopee, it would 
appear that the entire district, which I represent in coastal Georgia, 
would come under this new permitting process if the bureaucrats and if 
Mr. Moran had his way. I'm against that. If that's going to happen, let 
the legislative branch debate it and then send it to the executive 
branch.
  Number two, if you do so, all you're going to do is have more 
busybody bureaucrats in our lives interfering with job creation and 
interfering with progress in general.
  You know, my area of the Savannah River was authorized in the 1999 
WRDA Act to dredge the river. It took 13 years for four Federal 
agencies to sign off on the dredging even though we have been dredging 
the Savannah River ever since Oglethorpe sailed up it in 1733; but it 
took our government, four Federal agencies, 13 years to give us a 
record of decision.
  During that period of time, China started to build a port that is now 
bigger than the Port of Savannah. They started from scratch to finish, 
and here we are supposed to be competing in a world marketplace, but 
that's the kind of permitting process and delays that the bureaucracies 
cause us.
  I would rather leave these waters under State jurisdiction than the 
Federal Government.
  Number three and finally, it's vague. It's totally vague. Anytime the 
Federal bureaucrats with their unlimited bank accounts get involved in 
rulemaking, they can run the clock. They can charge up the permitting, 
the lawyer fees, do everything they want.
  I will ask a question of my friend from Virginia. Can you tell me 
what ``significant nexus to navigable waters'' means? Does anybody know 
what that means? I can promise you, 435 people in this body would have 
a different definition as to what a ``significant nexus to navigable 
waters'' means.
  We do not need this executive branch and this administration to have 
more power. This is the crowd that brought you the IRS and the AP 
scandals. This is the crowd that brought you Fast and Furious. Do you 
really want them to have more power to interpret laws? I think not. I 
fear they would use that kind of authority to reward their friends and 
punish their enemies.
  For these three reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  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 noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. 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 Virginia 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1545

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 108.  Section 3(a)(6) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676; 102 Stat. 4013) 
     is amended by striking ``$775,000,000'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``$2,918,000,000''.
       Sec. 109. (a) Section 1001(17)(A) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1052) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$125,270,000'' and inserting 
     ``$152,510,000'';
       (2) by striking ``$75,140,000'' and inserting 
     ``$92,007,000''; and
       (3) by striking ``$50,130,000'' and inserting 
     ``$60,503,000''.
       (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     as of November 8, 2007.
       Sec. 110.  The authorization under the heading ``Little 
     Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana'', in section 
     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 
     Law 99-662; 100 Stat. 4115), as modified by section 127 of 
     Public Law 109-103 (119 Stat. 2259), is further modified to 
     authorize completion of the project at a total cost of 
     $269,988,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $202,800,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $67,188,000.
       Sec. 111.  During fiscal year 2014, the limitation relating 
     to total project costs in section 902 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall not apply with 
     respect to any project that receives funds made available by 
     this title.
       Sec. 112.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of 
     Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or 
     enforce any change to the regulations in effect on October 1, 
     2012, pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill 
     material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.).


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moran

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

       Page 13, beginning on line 1, strike section 112.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, my colleague, John Dingell and I have another 
amendment that strikes, in this case, section 112 of this bill because 
section 112 would prevent the Corps of Engineers from updating 
regulations defining the terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill 
material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
  Presently, the Army Corps issues a section 404 permit if the ``fill 
material'' discharged into a water body raises the bottom elevation of 
that water body or converts an area to dry land.
  When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, and that's why Mr. 
Dingell is so concerned about this, the 404 permit process was supposed 
to be used for certain construction projects, like bridges and roads, 
where raising the bottom elevation of a water body

[[Page 11073]]

or converting an area into dry land was simply unavoidable.
  But then, some clever attorneys in the George W. Bush administration 
found a way to allow mining waste to be dumped into rivers and streams 
without a rigorous environmental review process. They simply changed 
the definition of what qualifies as ``fill material.''
  Under a 2002 rule change, the Bush administration broadened that 
definition to, and I'd put this in quotes, ``include rock, sand, soil, 
clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, overburden from mining 
or other excavation activities.''
  Now, these guidelines are simply not well-suited for evaluating the 
environmental effects of discharging hazardous waste, such as mining 
refuse and similar materials, into a water body or wetland.
  When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, and for the first 30 
years of its passage, the law helped keep America's lakes, rivers and 
streams safe from mining pollution, protected wildlife and drinking 
water. But that's no longer the case today.
  Perhaps it would come as no surprise to many that, in 2009, the 
Supreme Court upheld this newer, broader definition of ``fill 
material'' that was adopted by the executive branch in 2002. The Court 
allowed this new definition to be used for a Kensington mining 
operation near Lower Slate Lake in Alaska.
  I want to point out this anecdotal example, although it's a very 
important one. So the permit allowed the discharge of toxic wastewater 
from a gold ore processing mill to go, untreated, directly into the 
lake, despite the fact that the discharge violates EPA standards for 
the mining industry. Today, all of Lower Slate Lake's fish and aquatic 
life is gone, dead.
  Now, Madam Chair, that's why we raise this amendment to strike 
section 112, which would permanently preclude the Corps from 
considering any regulatory changes to the current definition and permit 
process. I would note that, to much of the environmental community's 
frustration, the Corps hasn't issued any regulations to change the 
definition of ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material.''
  You can go back to that language that came about as a result of that 
clever change in 2002. You can find no effort by the Corps to change 
it, and the Corps hasn't expressed any plans to do so. That's 
disappointing.
  But since there is no time limit on the provision in this 
appropriations bill, it would not only block the current administration 
but any future administration from considering any changes, even one 
less sympathetic to the adverse health and environmental consequences 
of discharging hazardous waste into our drinking water.
  Madam Chair, this provision that's in this bill is intended to be a 
preemptive strike against protecting our drinking water. We should not 
be putting this kind of legislation onto an appropriations bill, 
particularly when it has such adverse consequences to the future health 
of our population. And that's why I would urge my colleagues to join me 
in removing this section from this appropriations bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I stand in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend from Virginia, and I want to start out by 
clarifying something that was said a minute ago, that this was done by 
clever Bush administration lawyers. In fact, it was a rule proposed by 
President Clinton. That would be Democrat President Clinton, a rule 
proposed by Democrat President Clinton.
  Now, there was a public comment period. It wasn't done in the dark of 
the night, but it was done with public comments, and the rule was 
changed in 2002, which is true that President Bush would have been the 
President during that time period. But it was an ongoing and a slow and 
deliberate process, and it was simply a commonsense need that was 
something that I think was pro-business, which I understand is 
offensive to some people.
  But it also streamlines the bureaucracy and helps the private sector 
create jobs. And all it simply did was get the Corps of Engineers and 
the EPA to have the same definition of fill. That's not a radical 
concept. That's common sense. And again, if we're going to compete in 
the world marketplace, we should have common sense, even with 
Washington bureaucrats.
  Now, the definition includes materials that, when placed into the 
waters of the U.S., have the effect of replacing or changing the bottom 
elevation of any portion of that water. Therefore, it includes rock, 
sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, and 
overburden from mining.
  These are regulated right now. They're not exempt from this. It 
simply says that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers would use the same 
definition. So I stand in opposition to this.
  And I do not think that this is the purpose of the gentleman's 
amendment, but I do worry that, as this administration seems to have an 
open war going on on coal, is this perhaps part of it? Not necessarily 
this amendment, but the thinking that two different agencies can now 
get on a different sheet in terms of what a definition is and, 
therefore, one agency can be more proactive in slowing up progress and 
activities of which you don't approve.
  There is an estimation that if this was to happen, 375,000 jobs in 
the mining business could be jeopardized. Now, I understand, this 
administration doesn't like mining, but for the rest of us who use the 
products in the United States of America, this is something that is 
significant and disturbing; 375,000 jobs in what we have called an 
anemic recovery already.
  So I believe that the responsible thing for us to do is to reject 
this amendment and say that, if this definition does need to be 
changed, let it not be done by bureaucrats, and let it not be done by 
lawyers either, but let it be done by the elected representatives, both 
Democrat and Republican, of the American people, and let 218 of us in 
the House have a ``yes'' or a ``no'' vote, and then 51 in the Senate, 
and then send it to the White House for signature, rather than have 
unelected bureaucrats whom no one knows make these very important 
significant legal decisions for us.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia. I urge them to 
strike section 112.
  There's no one in this Chamber that owns this world. We borrow it 
from those who come behind us in the future, and we owe them a duty to 
see to it that we return it in proper form.
  The bill, as drafted, forbids the Federal Government from seeing to 
it that all manner of defilement is not dumped into the navigable 
waters of the United States. This is having an appalling consequence, 
destroying waters, killing fish, polluting the water sources of our 
communities and cities. But beyond that, it's doing something else.
  A race of unscrupulous people are sawing the tops off our mountains 
in the Appalachians and other places, and they're taking that spoil and 
dropping it in river valleys and filling them up, the result of which 
is that the water flowing through that valley becomes highly acidic, 
and it produces severe danger, not just to fish and wildlife, but to 
human beings. These are the waters of the United States that are being 
defiled.
  The amendment would at least afford a moderate level of authority to 
the Federal Government, which has always been that authority of the 
Federal Government, to protect one of the greatest treasures this 
Nation has: its flowing waters.
  My colleagues on the other side think that that is a question of 
jobs. We're going to mine, and we should, but we should do it carefully 
and wisely and well, with due attention to the

[[Page 11074]]

future and to our trusteeship of the world that we love.
  We do not have the right to defile our waters. We have a duty to 
protect this land and to see to it that it is returned to future 
generations of Americans in as good a shape as we have found it, and 
perhaps, if we can, in a better shape.
  What they have done is to change the situation, where now almost 
anything goes, and the result is a calamity for the future of the 
United States.
  Water is one of the next coming great shortages of this Nation. It's 
something that is going to be very much missed by our future 
generations because we have, by adopting this bill without this 
amendment, defiled those waters, made them unsafe to drink and to 
recreate in, made them unsafe for all kinds of purposes, including even 
industrial use of those waters.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by my good 
friend from Virginia. I urge you, my dear friends and colleagues, to 
look to the future of the country whose custodians and trustees we are, 
to see to it that we return this beautiful Nation of ours to the future 
generations in the condition in which we found it and which is suitable 
and fitting to the greatest Nation in the world.
  We can have mining, we can have all of the other things we need, but 
all we have to do, under the law, as it has been, is to do it wisely, 
carefully, prudently and well, with due regard for the future.
  This language in the bill stricken by the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Virginia would defile those waters and defile the future 
of this Nation.
  I beg you, support the amendment. I beg you, strike the section. I 
beg you, be good trustees of the future and of the great gifts that God 
has given this Nation, and to strike section 112 so that we can 
properly protect one of the great blessings that this Nation has, an 
abundance of water, which the language of the bill, as now drawn, will 
defile and destroy.
  And people in the Appalachians will curse us for what we have done to 
them by filling stream valleys with muck and corruption, by defiling 
the waters and the rivers and the streams and the lakes of the United 
States.

                              {time}  1600

  This is not good custodianship. This is a disregard of the greatest 
opportunity that we have, and that is to return to our future 
generations this Nation in the shape in which they will want it to be 
and we want it to be.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran-Dingell amendment that 
gives this and future administrations the flexibility they need should 
they decide to address the issue of ``fill material.''
  While the Clean Water Act has been a success, we still have a long 
way to go to fulfill the promise of the Act. According to the EPA, for 
the first time in many years, the Nation's waters have actually started 
to get dirtier. The response to this disturbing news should be a 
renewal of the Nation's commitment to clean water. Unfortunately, the 
previous administration charted a different course and worked to 
dismantle the very tools that make the Clean Water Act work.
  Through regulatory changes, the previous administration eliminated a 
25-year-old ban on dumping mining and other industrial wastes into 
streams and wetlands, and adopted policies abandoning the long-standing 
national ``no net loss of wetlands'' goal. That administration also 
proposed weakening the Clean Water Act's program that guides the 
cleanup of polluted waters.
  Congress made it clear that the Clean Water Act covers all of these 
waters. I know this because I was there. In 1972, I spoke on the floor 
of the House about Clean Water Act and stated for the legislative 
history that that the bill covers all the waters of the United States. 
What we in Congress said when the law was passed remains true today: in 
order for the goal of clean water to be met, all waters must be 
protected for water pollution to be eliminated at its sources.
  We in the Congress knew in 1972, as we know now, that the purposes of 
the Act--to restore and maintain the integrity of the country's 
waters--could not be achieved if any of the nation's vital waters are 
removed from the law's scope.
  As a conservationist, hunter and avid sportsman, I see a pressing 
need to protect and restore our Nation's waterways and wetlands. These 
valuable systems support a diverse array of migratory birds, as well as 
many other species of wildlife. These waters are also an integral part 
of the landscape that serves mankind. Wetlands help prevent floods and 
are natural filters, removing pollutants from drinking water.
  I was proud to play a part in enacting the Clean Water Act. Prior to 
that landmark legislation, rivers were catching on fire and fishermen 
dubbed Lake Erie the Dead Sea. We have come too far to allow a roll-
back. I ask my colleagues to support both Moran-Dingell amendments.
  Mr. GIBBS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment 
to strike section 112 of the Energy and Water appropriations bill. The 
current regulatory definition of the term ``fill material'' is 
consistent with EPA and the Corps' longstanding practice and ensures 
that necessary placement of excess rock and soil generated by 
construction and development projects in waters in the United States 
are regulated by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 
This current rule brings certainty and protects the environment.
  Both the EPA and the Corps have stated they are considering revising 
the definition of fill material. If unelected bureaucrats redefine this 
important definition, it would have a significant impact on the ability 
of all earth-moving industries, road and highway construction projects, 
and private and commercial enterprises to obtain vital Clean Water Act 
section 404 permits.
  Changing the definition of fill material could result in the loss of 
up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and further this administration's 
assault on over 1 million jobs that are dependent on the economic 
output generated by these operations. Congress should therefore reject 
any attempts to add a new, inappropriately narrow definition of the 
term ``fill material'' that will not only harm existing operations but 
would also halt many new job-creating projects.
  I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in support of Congressman Moran's amendment to 
strike section 112 and to protect the fresh waters of our Nation for 
future generations.
  I note that many of those who have spoken in opposition to the Moran 
amendment do not live in parts of the country that actually would be 
affected by the burial of this material.
  Section 112 would prohibit the Corps from amending its regulations to 
change the definition of fill material and discharge of fill material 
so that discharges of mine wastes and similar materials into the waters 
of the United States would be regulated under the more environmentally 
protective regulations and standards issued under the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program in section 402 of 
the Clean Water Act and administered by the States, along with EPA.
  I don't know how many Members actually have had to deal with cleaning 
up messes in their districts. But I didn't know that, once I became a 
Member of Congress, how significant the work would be and what I would 
have to do just in my region of the country to clean up the mess from 
the past. Well, I've learned too much.
  Maybe the districts of those who are standing up in opposition to Mr. 
Moran's amendment have never had to do this. But let me tell you there 
are dead freshwater lakes in Ohio that are very close, in fact, to the 
gentleman who just spoke in opposition to Mr. Moran's amendment. There 
are lakes that have been polluted and no one knows how to clean them 
up. I have actually had the task of representing a river that is dead 
with waste that's in the bottom of the river that washed out into 
adjoining streams in the lake

[[Page 11075]]

and all the scientists are trying to figure out how to cap it, how to 
do this, how to do that with the PCBs and everything else. There are 
Love Canals all across this country. We have to change the way we live 
for the future generations of this country.
  How about trying to clean up beryllium that's moving in streams and 
washing out and you see rising cancer rates? And why are cancer rates 
in certain parts of the country more than in other parts of the 
country? Well, it's the legacy of the past and the messes that aren't 
cleaned up.
  How about unexploded ordnance on the bottoms of streams and rivers 
and lakes across this country? If you get the Department of Defense 
charts on what exists in this country that needs to be cleaned up, the 
defense cleanup costs that are necessary just across this Nation, 
including in some of our freshwater lakes, is staggering.
  If you don't know about the problems, I'm sorry that you don't. But I 
don't see how adding mine waste to the rest of this mess is going to 
make the future better than the past.
  If you think about the population of the country, we had 146 million 
people in the country 50, 60 years ago. Today, we have 310 million. By 
2050, it's going to be 500 million. But do you know what's not going to 
increase? The amount of water we have. The amount of fresh water is not 
an infinite resource. It is absolutely finite. And it's used once and 
maybe it drops down again in the rain. But nobody is going to give us 
more water. It's either going to be snowfall or it's going to be rain, 
and it's going to wash into our streams and rivers. There's not going 
to be anymore. We're going to have five, six, seven times more people 
than we had in the past.
  Why would we risk burying more junk in our rivers, in our streams, 
and throwing it out in these riverbeds around the country? If you 
haven't faced the task of trying to clean it up, then you shouldn't 
even be voting on this bill. The cost of past cleanups is enormous.
  I wish I didn't have to deal with it in my region of the country. I 
came here to make the parks better. I came here to build better 
housing. I came here to create jobs. And I'm finding I have these 
billion-dollar cleanup jobs for which we have no money, no money to 
clean them up. Why would we add to the problem?
  Under the current definition, such discharges are evaluated under the 
Clean Water Act section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which are not well suited 
for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous 
wastes like mining refuse and similar materials into jurisdictional 
wetlands and waters. Further, the current provision does not apply to 
just this year. It applies to any subsequent energy and water 
development act, precluding potential changes that may be necessary to 
protect public health or the environment.
  If you haven't seen babies that have tumors in their brains because 
some company buried waste in parks that those children played in, then 
somebody better wake up around here and change the way that we do 
business in this country, because we cannot do this. We cannot continue 
the bad practices of the past. We have to make life better for future 
generations that will have more pressures on them simply because of the 
population growth in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Moran amendment, and I commend 
him for offering it on this bill today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I rise today in opposition to the Moran amendment.
  Basically, at a May Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee 
hearing on water, I specifically asked the EPA's Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Water, Nancy Stoner, what specific problems with the 
current definition of fill material was prompting the agency and the 
Corps to examine changing their current definition. Administrator 
Stoner at that time did not identify any problem--this was just 
recently, in May--with the current definition and instead told me there 
were no active discussions with the Corps on revising the 2002 
definition of fill material.
  I do live in an area that this greatly affects. We've got a lot of 
water in West Virginia, by God's good grace. Given that the EPA 
official charged with overseeing water problems did not identify any 
problems with the current definition of fill material in response to a 
specific question from me, it is difficult for me to see why the EPA 
and the Corps would attempt to change an established definition.
  The current definition of fill material has been in place for over a 
decade and provides a fair standard for protecting our water while 
allowing for economic activity. The 2002 definition was the result of a 
very lengthy rulemaking process that began under President Clinton's 
administration and was finalized under the Bush administration.
  A balance between our economy and the environment is absolutely 
essential. A balance between protecting our environment and creating 
jobs is essential. The current definition does just that.
  The Federal Government must provide regulatory certainty to job 
creators and not change definitions without adequate justification. If 
the administrator had responded differently to the question that I 
posed to her, I might not be standing here today with this type of 
opposition. But, in my view, I think that we need to oppose this 
amendment and keep the current definition of fill material. It's been 
well researched, well used. It is in effect in the State of West 
Virginia and is used quite a bit to continue our mining operations and 
to continue to keep good, solid West Virginians working.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  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 noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 113.  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.

  Mr. LARSEN of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LARSEN of Connecticut. I want to commend the gentlelady from Ohio 
and the gentleman from New Jersey for the debate, in general, that 
we've witnessed on this floor. I think we can all agree in so many 
respects that infrastructure is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. 
It's an American issue.
  I come here this afternoon to reason, which is a funny word here, I 
guess, in Congress, but in fact is something that I think we need to do 
more of. I come here disheartened to see this bill come to the floor 
that is underinvesting in something that is as critical to the Nation 
as flood protection. Amongst the many infrastructure issues, it's one 
that imperils many districts, including my own. We have systems that 
are 75 years old and have not been addressed in a way that they need to 
be. All around us, whether it's in my district or anywhere across this 
country, infrastructure problems abound, whether it's roads, whether 
it's bridges, whether it's airports, whether it's deep harbors, whether 
it's school systems, or whether it's levees. They are in need of 
repair. They are in need of our investment as a Nation.

[[Page 11076]]

  The great irony is that in these difficult economic times what we 
need is to put the country back to work. What is required for the 
country to go back to work is to improve the very infrastructure over 
which our commerce grows and flows that provides our economy with the 
kind of boost that it needs that puts our people back to work.
  I have heard person after person on the other side get up and cite 
China, talking about their vast development. How has China moved 
forward, if not in developing its own infrastructure? Yet here in our 
country the neglect continues.
  Congress cannot continue to sleep while our infrastructure erodes 
from underneath us. The levees between Hartford and East Hartford have 
been cited in study after study as needing attention, and the local 
municipalities have put in their own funding for it, but cannot 
possibly match what the Federal Government has required. And this is 
not just in my State and in my district, but all across this country.
  A case in point can be made with Hurricane Sandy, where the 
government spent $60 billion in disaster relief by funding projects, 
which was the prudent thing to do. But we know that for every $1 spent 
in preserving and making our districts safe by improving the 
infrastructure, it's $4 saved in this country.
  It's hard for people back in my district, and especially people who 
gather at Augie and Ray's, a local stand in my district where they 
serve hot dogs and hamburgers and coffee and breakfast in the morning, 
to understand why it is that Congress can't get together and reason and 
understand that by funding the infrastructure, not by cutting back on 
the Army Corps, not by continuing to cut programs that will provide 
funding for jobs, but by actually investing in Americans, instead of 
sitting idly by and watching as other nations, especially our chief 
competitors, invest in their own infrastructure, improve their own 
security, while Congress sleeps and watches the slow erosion of what 
was once the greatest system in the world--and still can be--if we come 
together and reason and invest in our systems, invest in our people, 
invest in our security, invest in the protection that will make sure 
that the American people are safe, secure and, most importantly, back 
to work.

                              {time}  1615

  It's neither Democrat nor Republican. It's fundamentally American.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes.
  I actually wanted to come down here in support of this bill, the 
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. I would like to 
commend Chairman Frelinghuysen and the entire subcommittee on 
developing a strong bill that balances the needs of our Nation with 
fiscal responsibility.
  This bill cuts spending by nearly $3 billion from FY13 enacted levels 
while maintaining critical funding for navigation, infrastructure, and 
our Nation's domestic energy needs.
  One issue of particular importance to me and my home in southwest 
Washington is the maintenance of our waterways and small ports. 
Sediment buildup has essentially blocked commerce, leaving communities 
in Wahkiakum County, Chinook, and Ilwaco without their largest and most 
critical industries.
  When one of these channels is blocked for communities in my district, 
it's no different than if a town's main highway were completely blocked 
or washed away. We need to treat the maintenance of our Nation's small 
ports with the same level of urgency.
  The underlying bill makes great strides to alleviate these challenges 
by including $1 billion from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for Army 
Corps dredging and no less than $30 million specifically for small 
ports and waterways. While this will not completely fulfill all of our 
Nation's needs, it certainly illustrates the chairman's dedication and 
our dedication to our ports in towns and counties and States across the 
country like my home in southwest Washington.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am proud to have 
played a role in securing this funding. I strongly support the bill and 
encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to be 
in this Chamber and listen to the debate that's going on.
  My colleagues on the other side, their bill seeks to reduce the role 
that the Environmental Protection Agency would play. I hear words and 
phrases like ``an unelected body that makes decisions in the night for 
no one to see or hear.'' But, Mr. Chairman, it is not an unelected 
body. We have elections in our country, and we had a Presidential 
election; and elections have consequences. The EPA is an arm of the 
administration, an arm of a President who was elected with a commanding 
victory this past November. And to hear that this is an unelected body 
and work being done in the dead of night for no one else to know about 
is just not the case.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side--I was a prosecutor. We would 
have a trial. I would pick a jury. We would put on evidence. I would 
give a closing argument. The jury would deliberate, and then we would 
all accept the verdict. We had the same thing for over a year. We had 
Presidential debate after debate, TV ads that we were all tired of. Now 
we have a President who was reelected and an agency that the President 
is charged with administrating. And it really does disturb me, Mr. 
Chairman, to think that these agencies shouldn't have any teeth or 
enforcement to protect our children and the future.
  But I also rise today to express my concern about the impact that 
this Energy and Water appropriations bill will have on the important 
work that our national laboratories are doing. We depend on our 
national laboratories for the basic scientific research that keeps our 
country safe and keeps us on the cutting edge of technology.
  Our national labs are home to some of the greatest minds in the 
country, and we all benefit greatly when we allow these great 
researchers the freedom to do what they were trained to do and to 
explore the scientific questions that they are passionate about.
  I am fortunate that I am able to represent Lawrence Livermore 
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories, which are NNSA 
laboratories and work on maintaining our nuclear stockpile, but also 
are participating in research that will provide an all-of-the-above 
energy solution for our future.
  Right now, however, this bill reduces what the laboratories call 
laboratory directed research and development. Laboratory directed 
research and development, LDRD, allows the scientists at the laboratory 
to work on their own experiments in addition to the work that they do 
at the lab. Now, in the private sector, Google really was the first 
company to innovate with this, they call it 20 percent time. One day 
out of the week an employee at Google would be able to work 20 percent 
of the work, 1 day, on their own projects for Google. Some of the 
programs that we all use, like Gmail or Picasa or Google documents came 
from Google's 20 percent time.
  Well, the laboratory, their 20 percent time is actually, today, 8 
percent time. It's LDRD. This is a way to recruit top talent and retain 
its scientists with a promise of being able to do publishable work in 
addition to their classified work. But this bill foolishly cuts LDRD 
time from 8 percent to 4.5 percent. This will result in less 
independent science research. It will hurt the ability of our 
classified labs to recruit and retain top talent and will surely 
deprive the Nation of scientific discoveries.
  Additionally, I am concerned about the cuts to the Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility, also known as NIF. 
Over

[[Page 11077]]

the long term, NIF is a fundamental part of providing our Nation with 
energy security. It also, in light of international treaties that 
prevent us from conducting nuclear tests below or above ground, allows 
us to use laser science to test and maintain our stockpile while also 
participating in nonproliferation programs, which makes our stockpile 
leaner and meaner.
  America should be a leader in the area of fusion research. Russia, 
China, and France have accelerated investments in their efforts to 
compete in inertial confinement fusion, but they remain behind this 
premier U.S. endeavor. Ceasing support for NIF would be ceding to those 
countries or others American leadership in what could be the energy 
industry of the future. Considering our national security threats and 
limited domestic energy sources, this is no time to be cutting its 
capabilities.
  Unfortunately, jobs at NIF have already been cut and the capacity has 
been curtailed because of reductions in fiscal year 2013 and the 
sequester. The funding levels in this bill would make the situation 
much worse.
  We must ensure that the United States does not fall behind our 
competitors and continues to build upon the investments already begun. 
It is crucial that NIF gets the funding it needs to continue this 
crucial work.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the damage 
that these cuts would do at our national laboratories and consider the 
value of preserving our country's leadership and our role in 
maintaining our nuclear stockpile and investments in the future of our 
country through laboratory directed research and development.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  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, $7,425,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $1,000,000 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, to remain available until September 30, 
     2015.
       For fiscal year 2014, 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, $812,744,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $28,000 shall be available for transfer to 
     the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $8,401,000 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 the 
     funds were 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.


                     Amendment Offered by Mrs. Noem

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

       Page 15, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from South Dakota is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chair, my amendment would ensure that we're placing a 
higher priority on completing some ongoing rural water projects in the 
Great Plains region and in the West.
  My amendment takes $15 million from the Department of Energy's 
administration budget and $15 million from the solar energy programs. 
$25 million of this would go into the Bureau of Reclamation's Rural 
Water Projects; the remaining $5 million would be left for deficit 
reduction.
  Mr. Chair, I recognize that we have limited funds to go around. This 
is why we need to work so hard to make sure that our priorities are 
addressed. It's why we make sure that we can agree that water should be 
a priority, that drinking water for people that live in this country 
should be a priority.
  There are places in this country, especially in the rural areas, that 
people are still waiting for a stable water supply. There are towns 
that would like to grow, but they don't have enough water or basic 
infrastructure to find new businesses and bring new families in. 
They're waiting for the Federal Government to complete projects that 
have already been authorized, that have already been started, and that 
those communities have already invested in.
  As we go through the appropriations process, I think supplying our 
rural areas with water should be a top priority. I think it is 
shocking; it's shocking that some of these authorized projects have 
been waiting years to see the promised Federal dollars to complete the 
projects. Many of these local communities have already funded their 
share of the projects. Some of the administration's funding proposals 
for these projects don't even keep up with inflation.
  So as representatives, we absolutely need to be responsible with 
taxpayer dollars. When the Federal Government makes a promise to 
provide basic infrastructure, they need to follow through. This 
amendment is just a small step in getting where we need to be.
  It is common sense to make sure that something as basic as water 
supply is available in all areas, urban and rural. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' on the amendment to ensure that these very essential 
projects are on their way to completion.
  I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for their hard 
work on this bill. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this amendment, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative 
Noem's amendment.
  I think that there is a worthy objective of providing freshwater to 
all parts of our country. We talked about that earlier today. The 
problem is her amendment takes funds from other accounts to try to move 
some of those dollars to rural America.
  Frankly, our fundamental problem is that this bill is $2.8 billion 
under what was being expended in this fiscal year of 2013, and it's $4 
billion under the administration request. So what she's essentially 
doing is taking money from something else in order to move it to rural 
areas of the country. I represent some of those. They're very worthy. 
Some of them do receive funds through the Department of Agriculture. 
Some smaller communities also have associations with the Environmental 
Protection Agency. But to cut funds, to take money from the Renewable 
Energy account--$15 million from there--and from other water-related 
accounts and to cut departmental administration really is sort of 
picking off very scarce

[[Page 11078]]

bones. And I have to oppose the amendment on that basis.
  The Renewable Energy accounts, which are America's future--they're a 
major part of our downpayment on the future--have been cut 60 percent. 
You are withdrawing additional funds from those accounts to try to move 
toward needed rural water needs. But, frankly, these accounts have been 
severely cut, and the gentlelady's amendment harms them more. We simply 
can't cut more from those accounts.
  I support more funding for the rebuilding of America's urban water 
systems, which are leaking all over this country. In fact, we just had 
a collapse in my home community. For some reason, a major intersection 
just imploded because the water systems underneath weren't properly 
attended to. This is happening from coast to coast.
  So our urban water systems are severely constricted. There are all 
kinds of problems there. And in parts of rural America, obviously we 
are still trying to extend lines, trying to clean water, trying not to 
pollute water anymore in order to make sure that citizens who live 
there and the livestock that is there has sufficient freshwater 
resources.
  So I identify with what you're trying to do, but not where you are 
taking the funds from. Those dollars simply can't be cut any further. 
So I have to oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.
  Perhaps we can work in other ways in the future, but the fundamental 
problem is the bill has been cut $2.8 billion, and some of that is 
coming from the dollars that would be available for rural water 
programs.
  So I strongly oppose the amendment, not because it isn't worthy, but 
simply because she's raiding other accounts that are cut, literally, to 
the bone.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Noem amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and neighbor from 
South Dakota for authoring and offering this amendment, which I support 
and urge my colleagues to support. It really re-prioritizes the 
spending and the good work that the Appropriations Committee has 
already done just a few million dollars. It re-prioritizes it in a way 
that recognizes the changing of our Nation in recent years because so 
much of the policy and the appropriations of our Energy Department are 
based on an old order that recognizes our country as having a scarcity 
of natural resources for energy development.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is no longer the case. We are now a Nation of 
abundant energy resources, but we are still, especially in the West, a 
Nation of scarce water resources, water resources that are important to 
the development of many of our rural communities and our tribes and our 
farms and ranches, water for drinking, water for industrial growth, 
water for irrigation. So I think this re-prioritization of a few 
million dollars is appropriate and recognizes how different our world 
is.
  With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                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, $53,288,000, 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 plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     $30,000,000, 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 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, 2015, 
     $60,000,000, 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

[[Page 11079]]

     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.
       Sec. 203.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     until the pipeline reliability study required in the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, is completed, and any 
     necessary changes are made to Technical Memorandum No. 8140-
     CC-2004-1, the Bureau of Reclamation shall not deny approval, 
     funding, or assistance to any project, nor disqualify any 
     material from use, based, in whole or in part, on the 
     corrosion control used, if the corrosion control meets the 
     requirements of a published national or international 
     standard promulgated by the American Water Works Association 
     (``AWWA''), ASTM International, the American National 
     Standards Institute (``ANSI''), NACE International (``NACE'') 
     or the American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM''). 
     The Bureau shall allow any project initiated during the study 
     to use any corrosion control meeting the above standards.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

          Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency

       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, and 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, $982,637,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount 
     provided under this heading, $76,926,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2015, for program direction.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $9,518,000)''.
       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $22,586,500)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, nuclear weapons production 
played a pivotal role in our Nation's defense for decades, helping to 
end the Second World War and to end the Cold War. Implementing these 
programs resulted in a large volume of radioactive waste that the 
Federal Government has a legal responsibility to clean up.
  Today, there are indications that nuclear waste is leaking out of the 
underground tanks at Hanford in my congressional district, with higher 
levels of contamination now being detected in the surrounding soil.
  The amendment that I offer, Mr. Chairman, would restore a portion of 
the reduction for the Environmental Management program that would so 
greatly impact the Richland Operations Office and help enable the 
cleanup to move forward safely, efficiently, and in a timely manner.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be happy to yield to the 
subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I appreciate your longstanding commitment to 
Hanford, and I support this amendment, which is aimed at strengthening 
environmental management in the Richland Operations Office. EM is a 
priority for the subcommittee. I look forward to returning to Hanford, 
as I have in the past, to get a firsthand look at the latest challenges 
and progress, and we know there are lots of challenges.
  As you know, Representative Hastings, the Department of Energy has 
not yet provided confirmation of probable tank leaks, a Record of 
Decision on the potential for tank TRU waste, or a plan for the waste 
treatment plant. This information will be required as Congress 
completes the appropriations process for the Office of River 
Protection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, thank 
you for your support for this amendment and for your position on Yucca 
Mountain in the underlying bill, which is the ultimate solution for 
Hanford's high-level tank waste.
  I would like to remind the chairman, I am meeting with Secretary 
Moniz later this week, and I will reiterate the need for this 
information that you have just outlined for WTP.
  I also recognize the discrepancy in allocations between the House and 
Senate bills.
  I want to ask the gentleman: How do you anticipate that these 
differences will be resolved, particularly as they pertain to EM, in 
the event of a continuing resolution?
  I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In the event of a continuing resolution, the 
Department of Energy has the flexibility in determining funding levels 
for individual programs and projects, including EM.
  Mr. Hastings, I am pleased to support your amendment and I wish its 
success.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I hope 
we don't get to a CR, but thank you very much for that information.
  At this time, I would like to yield to my colleague from southwest 
Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), the gentlelady from the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Hanford, as the gentleman mentioned, was the 
reactor used for the Manhattan Project and was used to build the U.S. 
nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.
  I recently had an opportunity to tour Hanford with the gentleman and 
so firmly believe in this amendment because this is a Federal 
Government responsibility, this wasn't a choice by a local community. 
The cleanup just is simply beyond the scope of the communities 
involved. This matters to people in my district and up and down the 
Columbia River, which is adjacent to your area.
  I would urge my colleagues, this isn't somebody's pet project, this 
isn't somebody's good idea. This is a responsibility. The gentleman 
said ``a legal responsibility''--I would add to that a moral 
responsibility--of the Federal Government to put this money here and 
help aid the cleanup at Hanford.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for her remarks.
  Again, I urge adoption of this amendment because this is a legal 
obligation.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to Congressman Hastings that I 
rise with sympathy toward the situation you face at Hanford, but must 
oppose your amendment.
  The amendment essentially would cut funding from energy efficiency 
and renewable energy, specifically the weatherization program, which 
affects dozens and dozens of communities across this country, many of 
them very low income, as well as departmental administration, which has 
already been cut to the bone, to move money to Hanford.
  It is true that the communities that contributed to the Manhattan 
Project cannot be left with the remnants of that war effort. We have a 
moral obligation to clean up these sites. Without question, the bill is 
inadequate to meet the commitments to States and local communities 
faced with cleanup.
  However, we cannot take those dollars out of the hides of elderly 
people who might live in Newark, New Jersey, in the wintertime, or in 
Portland, Oregon, or places where they can't afford their energy bills, 
or we can't divert money from administration, which is already cut to 
such a low level at the Department in order to move dollars to Hanford.
  Hanford already receives over $2 billion a year--$2 billion. I wish 
my community received $2 billion. I wish your communities received $2 
billion a year.
  Those dollars come from the River Protection program, over $1.2 
billion, plus an additional $877 million, well over $2 billion a year. 
That's more than most communities represented by Members here can even 
imagine coming to their region of the country.

[[Page 11080]]

  The defense waste cleanup in Ohio is extraordinary. We don't get $2 
billion a year. So to say to senior citizens across this country we are 
going to take it out of your weatherization program so you can't put 
plastic around your windows in the wintertime and try to retrofit your 
houses, or we are going to take it out of departmental administration 
where we risk accounting for the funds properly for all of these 
programs that the Department has to administer, including the cleanup, 
some of these contracts that we've had problems with in that 
Department, I simply can't support the manner in which the gentleman 
and the gentlelady have identified where they are taking the money 
from.
  So while I agree with their intent, as I've said many times, the 
allocation for this bill is $2.8 billion under last year and $4 billion 
under the administration's request and is simply insufficient. We can't 
keep picking the bones off the most needy parts of our country to try 
to divert additional dollars to efforts at Hanford that are spending 
well over $2 billion a year already.
  I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reluctantly 
oppose the gentleman's amendment. But in being fair and looking at all 
the accounts, we simply can't keep picking from the bones of other 
programs at the Department.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against the Hastings amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 
at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $992,620,780)''.
       Page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $430,029,400)''.
       Page 26, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $233,250,000)''.
       Page 31, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,655,900,180)''.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (during the reading). Mr. 
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I object.
  Would the gentlewoman be able to identify the amendment which she is 
proposing?
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I withdraw my objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The objection is withdrawn.
  Without objection, the reading is dispensed with, and the gentlewoman 
from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this 
amendment to restore the significant cuts to the critical science and 
energy research and development programs that were made in this bill, 
including an 80 percent cut to ARPA-E and a 50 percent cut to the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. These programs, along 
with the Department of Energy's Office of Science, are vital to our 
national security, our economy, and our environment in the decades to 
come.
  It is really worth us thinking about the fact that we have seen how 
government research can pay off when it comes to energy development. 
DOE-supported research was key to the development of high-efficiency 
gas turbines, for coal plants, nuclear reactors developed at Federal 
labs, and the directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing practices 
that have led to the shale gas boom today. But we should remember that 
those achievements require decades of Federal investment, the 
overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil and nuclear 
energy.
  I continue to support research to make today's technologies cleaner 
and more efficient, but I believe that it is time for a level playing 
field. I introduce a real competition to our markets. That is where the 
priorities set by Congress come into play. We have to find the greatest 
value for our investment of the taxpayer dollar. Today, it is the 
emerging energy technology sectors that can most benefit from 
government support.
  I have heard it said that this bill has been cut to the bone, and I 
know that. It is important that DOE's Office of Science is actually the 
largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the 
country, and it 30 national scientific user facilities whose 
applications go well beyond energy innovation.

                              {time}  1645

  Our Nation's top researchers from industry, academia, and other 
Federal agencies use these facilities to examine everything from new 
materials, which will better meet our military's needs, to new 
pharmaceuticals, which will better treat disease, to even examining the 
fundamental building blocks of the universe. I believe that this 
stewardship of unique scientific research, which includes the Nation's 
major national user facilities, is another important role that I hope 
the Department will continue to make one of its highest priorities.
  It is no secret that Congress' inability to date to come to an 
agreement on a sensible budget plan has led to some devastating cuts to 
many of these important programs, with serious impacts on our Nation's 
future. To restore these research funds, I certainly would not wish to 
make these proposed cuts in my amendment which may slow down our 
ability to meet the Nation's defense environmental cleanup obligations 
this year. However, I believe that these research programs are the seed 
corn of our future. Some things we know we have to wait to do, and 
perhaps we can prolong that cleanup.
  Yet, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely plead that we not cut this type of 
money from the research we have going. Research is our Nation's future. 
We cannot give up on our Nation's future, so I am hoping that we can 
support this amendment and allow some of this research to go forward, 
and I ask for support.
  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. This amendment increases funding for science, 
ARPA-E, and renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency by a 
total of $1.7 billion, using defense environmental cleanup as an 
offset.
  Defense environmental cleanup provides funding to clean up the legacy 
of the Manhattan Project, as we discussed earlier, which is a huge task 
that will take years to do. It will be a major expense and will take 
significant resources. We heard part of the Washington State story, but 
there is part of it in other parts of the country as well.
  The Federal Government has an inherent responsibility to address this 
legacy and to ensure that the materials created to build our nuclear 
weapons stockpile do not endanger the public health and the 
environment. There are also some other daunting technical challenges in 
cleaning up this waste, and this amendment would, frankly, completely 
gut those types of programs. It is doubtful that this level would even 
sustain the basic operation and maintenance of the facilities, let 
alone allow for any progress in the cleanup effort. The cleanup effort 
needs to be sustained.
  Our allocation has made, as I said earlier in the afternoon, for very 
tough choices. We placed the highest priority on activities on which 
the Federal Government must take the lead. While the applied energy and 
advanced research programs are down substantially, admittedly, there is 
a strong interest in advancing these areas of research, and the 
responsibility for conducting that

[[Page 11081]]

research can shift, in many ways, to the private sector. Therefore, I 
strongly oppose the amendment, and I urge other Members to do the same.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you for your explanation. I 
don't disagree with you, but I do feel that we cannot cut our research 
and think that we will have a prosperous future.
  So I would ask you to help me find a spot in which we, perhaps, can 
use the dollars and postpone some of the cleanup. This is urgent and it 
is needed, and I would ask you to agree to assist in our restoring some 
of this research.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In reclaiming my time, we know that the 
gentlewoman's heart is in the right place. We know of your heartfelt 
views. We would be happy to work with you to see what we can do to 
assist in these other areas, but this environmental cleanup, in some 
respects, is court-ordered besides there being, obviously, the 
potential for human health to be adversely affected.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I, too, rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  I do appreciate the gentlelady's concerns, particularly about science 
funding. However, Mr. Chairman, increasing funding for optional 
programs, as valuable as they may be, cannot come at the expense of the 
Federal Government's meeting its existing legal obligations to clean up 
the waste created by our Nation's nuclear defense programs. I might 
add, Mr. Chairman, that these were programs that won World War II and 
that largely won the Cold War.
  At Hanford, in my district, the Federal Government has 56 million 
gallons of radioactive nuclear waste stored in 177 underground tanks. 
Today, it appears likely that some of these tanks are leaking, and 
higher levels of contamination have now been detected in the areas 
surrounding one of the most recent leakers. In addition, there is also 
a large quantity of radioactive waste at Hanford that was never put 
into tanks. That, too, must be dealt with as well as the nuclear waste 
at other sites across the country, like at the Savannah River, Oak 
Ridge, and Idaho.
  Again, it is nuclear waste that was created by programs of the 
Federal Government for defense purposes. Cutting $1.7 billion from the 
EM program would essentially halt most nuclear waste cleanup work, and 
it would put the safety of our cleanup sites at risk and end any chance 
of the Federal Government's meeting its existing legal cleanup 
commitments to the States.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be more specific about Hanford. I mentioned 56 
million gallons of nuclear hazardous waste stored in 177 underground 
tanks. Those tanks range in size from a half a million gallons to a 
million gallons. Now, when you go out to the site, of course you can't 
see the tanks because they're underground. All you see are gauges on 
top that monitor what activity is going on in those tanks. If you want 
to quantify how much 56 million gallons is, picture this: if one were 
to put 56 million gallons here, it would take over 21 House Chambers to 
fill 56 million gallons of waste. That's how much radioactive waste is 
at Hanford, which needs to be cleaned up. It's the result of the 
defense weapons program.
  Now, the distinguished subcommittee chairman and I and others have 
mentioned the legal obligation. In Washington State, that legal 
obligation is called a tri-party agreement. It has set deadlines for 
cleaning up Hanford, including the waste that I just mentioned. It's a 
legal agreement between the Federal EPA, between the Federal Department 
of Energy, and between the State Department of Ecology. It's a legal 
agreement with time lines, and if you don't meet the agreements, of 
course you're going to be sued. Every time there has been a threat to 
be sued or there has been a disagreement on the time lines, the State 
has always won.
  So why would we want to defund this program and put all of that at 
risk, which, of course, would cost a whole lot more money in the 
future?
  While I recognize the gentlelady and her passion for science 
funding--and I, too, understand that as I have a national lab in my 
district, for example--56 million gallons, or over 21 House Chambers, 
of nuclear hazardous waste needs to be cleaned up, and it's the 
responsibility of the Federal Government. So I oppose the gentlelady's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAKANO. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of my 
colleague's, the gentlewoman from Texas.
  It is vital we support our basic scientific research. As the ranking 
member of the Science Committee, she carries great weight in these 
matters, and I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I clearly understand the 
explanation.
  This amendment does not strike all of the funds. It strikes about a 
third. I know the dangers of having all of the waste that needs to be 
cleaned up, but I also think that it's important not to close the doors 
on the future of this Nation while we do it. I really think that 
research has been the element that has brought us here thus far and 
that it is going to be research and innovation that carry us forward. 
We cannot close the door on research while we talk about cleaning up 
waste. We are only asking for a third of that money.
  So I want to make another appeal that we not close the door on the 
future of our Nation by shutting down our research.
  Mr. TAKANO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. To my colleagues in this great House, my name is 
Chuck Fleischmann. I represent the Third District of Tennessee, which 
has a great city. That city is Oak Ridge, the birthplace of the 
Manhattan Project.
  My colleagues, Oak Ridge has a great history. We won the Cold War 
there, and we won World War II there, but this was a time that the 
Federal Government in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons was not as 
careful as it could have been. We didn't know. We had to win those 
wars--and we did--but as a result of that legacy, we have a problem.
  Doc Hastings, my colleague from Washington, talked about the problem 
in Hanford--and there are 500 square miles in Hanford that need to be 
cleaned up--but in my community in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, there are 
populations of churches, schools, people all around in a highly 
condensed area. We have there, across the DOE complex, a tremendous 
legacy that needs to be cleaned up, and I want to talk about that 
briefly.
  We've got nuclear waste that needs to be cleaned up across the 
complex, and that's being done. We also have a mercury problem. There 
is an estimated 2 million pounds of mercury in the soil and in the 
water. This is a real problem for American citizens. This is a Federal 
obligation to clean this legacy up. There is no question about that.
  Across this great Nation, whether it's in Oak Ridge, at the Savannah 
River, in Hanford, or in Idaho, we have an obligation to the American 
people to clean this up. We won World War II and we won the Cold War, 
but we must do this. This waste is dangerous. It's expensive to clean 
these things up. It's not a matter of ``if''; it's a matter of 
``when.'' The longer we take to do this, we expose the people in these 
communities all across America to the hazards of this nuclear waste.

[[Page 11082]]

  So, Mr. Chairman, as an advocate for Oak Ridge and as an advocate for 
environmental cleanup, we must get this done. We have decades' worth of 
work to go. We have got to do this. As we honor Oak Ridge and other 
communities with a great national park, which is coming forward and 
which was voted for in this great House, we can never forget the legacy 
that's left behind. Environmental cleanup is a must. It is a Federal 
obligation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I appreciate the comments of my friends from 
Tennessee and Washington.
  In Colorado, in my district, we have two of those plants which are 
World War II and Cold War legacy plants--Rocky Flats and the Rocky 
Mountain Arsenal--so I appreciate the comments and the need to clean 
these sites up. It is long overdue. I agree with you, and I look 
forward to that.
  The problem we have here, on the one hand, are substantial cuts to 
the Energy Department's budget and, on the other hand, an increase to 
this line item above and beyond the President's request. As I 
understand it, the committee recommends to the House $345 million, 
which is $23.5 million over the administration's request.
  Although I agree completely with the need to clean up, the majority 
party is requesting more than is needed at this point, and it is to the 
detriment of the rest of the budget of the Energy Department. 
Particularly, the one that I'm concerned about is renewable energy, 
such as the National Renewable Energy Lab, and I will have an amendment 
to that point coming up later.
  So, to my friends, I agree with you that the cleanup needs to go 
forward. It should be done at the full amount the President requested 
and not at the $23 million more that has been suggested by the 
committee.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. This debate is a perfect example of why this bill's 
funding is so inadequate.
  What is really being debated is whether we are going to trade off the 
science of the future, which is so essential to America's 
competitiveness in the global economy, to take care of necessary past 
cleanup. Who can make that choice? They are both essential. Are we 
going to sacrifice the future for the past? That's really what this 
debate is about.
  We know that this bill is $4 billion under the administration's 
request and over $2 billion under what we spent in this fiscal year of 
2013. So we really have an argument that nobody wins. If we fund the 
past cleanup, we sacrifice the future. If we sacrifice the future, do 
we really take care of all the past cleanup? We hardly do what's 
necessary, even with current funding.
  So I think it's a perfect example of where the sequestration process 
is so counterproductive and moves America backwards. We have very 
imperfect choices here and actually very dangerous choices that we're 
being forced to make. I think the majority would be much better suited 
to come back to us with a budget that allows us to do the job that the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee is charged with doing.
  We simply can't try to solve the problem internal to the resources 
we've been given. It's an impossibility. So somebody is going to lose; 
and I guarantee you in the past amendment that just came up, some of 
the people that were the losers have no lobbies here in Washington. The 
poorest people in our country, who are getting weatherization 
assistance in order to stay a little bit warmer in the wintertime, they 
just lost money. They've got no lobby here. They've got none of those 
people from these various nuclear sites to come in here and lobby for 
them. Yet they just lost out in a prior amendment.
  They have a right to an existence in this country, but we are seeing 
inside the strictures of this set of choices that we've been given that 
somebody is always a loser. Actually, the country is a loser because of 
sequestration and the fact that our subcommittee has been given a mark 
so far below what is reasonable and frankly what we could do if we had 
a budget that allowed us to move the country forward, rather than 
create a can't-do Nation. We can't do science, we can't do cleanup 
because of what we were handed by, what, a Budget Committee whose 
members don't even appear on the floor to argue their positions during 
this debate?
  I feel sorry for our country, and I feel sorry for those who have to 
come down here and take from one another during this debate and hurt 
people across this country because our allocation is simply too 
insufficient to meet the needs of the Nation.
  So I want to thank the gentlelady for rising on this very important 
point of science of the future versus cleanup of the past, but we 
simply don't have the funds in this bill to do both and it puts us in a 
very destructive position for the interests of our Nation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Takano

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

       Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $245,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $245,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill to increase 
funding for the Department of Energy's advanced manufacturing program. 
My amendment increases funding for the renewable energy, energy 
reliability, and efficiency account by $245 million to meet the 
President's budget request for advanced manufacturing.
  If we are to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must 
fully invest in, develop, and commercialize the emerging technologies 
that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs in the United States. 
These investments are crucial to accelerate the advancement of ideas 
and allow American manufacturers to continue to innovate and compete. 
By matching the President's request, the Department of Energy will be 
able to move forward with plans to develop interagency manufacturing 
innovation institutes that will develop best practices and help 
manufacturers meet common challenges. These institutes will enable 
innovation, create a dependable talent pipeline, and improve the 
overall business climate.
  It requires a diverse array of partners if advanced manufacturing is 
to accelerate and thrive in the United States. A Federal commitment to 
these emerging and efficient technologies is the catalyst that will 
help bring educators, workers, and businesses, as well as local and 
State partners, to the table. Federal investments in advanced 
manufacturing will help create more jobs, increase our competitiveness, 
and allow the United States to continue to be a leader in advancing 
energy-efficient technologies.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and 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 rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I 
understand he may be offering some other amendments similarly related 
later on the floor. Suffice it to say that my remarks here will also 
pertain to those amendments.
  This amendment would unacceptably strike funding for the National 
Nuclear Security Administration's weapon activity by $245 million in 
order to increase funding for renewable energy,

[[Page 11083]]

energy reliability, and efficiency activities. Ensuring funding to 
maintain our nuclear stockpile is our highest priority in our Energy 
and Water development bill. Historically, it always has been and will 
continue to be. We have put off for too long the investments that are 
needed to ensure that we maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile in the 
future.
  Because of this historical underfunding, there's been strong 
bipartisan support for increasing weapons activities. Our bill takes a 
responsible approach to meeting those needs, reducing funding $193 
million below the request for nonessential activities within the 
weapons activities account that are not required to maintain the 
nuclear weapons stockpile, but there are no further savings available. 
A reduction of this magnitude would severely impact the National 
Nuclear Security Administration's ability to ensure the continued 
reliability of our weapons, something which the Secretary of Energy has 
to do to our Commander in Chief each and every year.
  I support the programs championed by my colleague. That's why we 
worked hard to increase the advanced manufacturing program by $5 
million over fiscal year 2013 within an account that is cut by $971 
million.
  I oppose the amendment and urge Members to do likewise, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Let me say to the gentleman from California that I am 
sympathetic toward his efforts on the renewable energy activities at 
the Department of Energy as they are critical for America's energy 
future, and I'm torn as I listen to his arguments.
  I just wanted to demonstrate a chart here that shows the relative 
superiority of the United States in the nuclear weapons field, the 
largest total inventory in the world, with Russia right behind. We have 
a significant nuclear capacity, much greater than nations that follow: 
France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, North Korea. The United 
States has quite significant nuclear complexes, and we must maintain 
them, and we must provide security for them.
  I think that the President's negotiations with Russia provide us with 
a very important opportunity to cut the systems and to do so in a 
responsible way that continues our superiority and our security, while 
bringing down the possibilities of reducing these weapons globally.
  The gentleman's amendment would actually move funds--$335 million 
from our weapons accounts--and move them to energy efficiency and 
renewable energy, which is a move that I would like to support at a 
future date--the sooner, the better. I appreciate him offering the 
amendment.
  Though I agree with his intent, as I've said many times before, the 
allocation for this bill is simply insufficient, and we're robbing one 
account to try to put funds in another account.
  I must very reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think 
he's moving in the right direction, and I think that this helps our 
Nation move in a more constructive direction for the future. We have a 
responsibility on the nuclear security front. Hopefully, with ongoing 
negotiations, we'll be able to make this move in the very near future.
  I want to thank him for his leadership in moving the country forward 
and showing us a new path. Let's hope that with the administration's 
engagement, we can move to that path sooner rather than later.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. The NNSA's weapons activities program is the 
core of the U.S. nuclear modernization efforts. Reductions of this 
magnitude, the $245 million being proposed in this amendment, will 
endanger the nuclear deterrent by delaying or canceling key warhead 
life-extension programs and facilitate modernization programs. These 
cuts will also cost taxpayers more in the future because the 
modernization program that the Obama administration has requested must 
be done and will only get more expensive with time.
  President Obama committed to request robust funding for nuclear 
modernization to win Senate ratification of his New START treaty 
program. But unfortunately, to date, he's $1.6 billion behind in that 
commitment for FY 12 through FY 14. Without these robust funding 
levels, our ability to safely reduce the New START levels is in 
question.
  The President's 2010 nuclear posture review says:

       These investments are essential to facilitating reductions 
     while sustaining deterrents under the New START and beyond.

  With this tight budget, we must provide every dollar we can to 
nuclear modernization efforts and prevent the draconian further 
reductions required by this amendment.
  NNSA is the only national security spending in this bill. Taking 
money from NNSA to pay for renewable energy directly undermines our 
national security to subsidize energy technologies that can't stand on 
their own in the market.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. 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. Perry

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

       Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $31,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $31,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, we've had a continuing debate about American 
energy independence. One way for America to achieve real energy 
independence is to utilize our own renewable and clean energy 
resources.
  Currently, there are over 800 dams across the Nation waiting to 
generate power. The dams are already sitting there, sitting on our 
Nation's rivers all across the country, waiting to generate power, just 
waiting. From Sacramento to Savannah and right on the Susquehanna River 
where I live, the power and the consistency of the water flow on these 
rivers is truly impressive and, as I said, consistent.
  The energy created from this immense water flow is something that 
America should harness for the use of individual and commercial power. 
In that vein, this amendment would increase the water power energy 
program by $31 million. Again, this applies only to the water power 
energy program.
  The Water Power Program is a vitally important program to reducing 
our dependence on Middle Eastern oil or fossil fuels for many folks on 
the other side of aisle and the administration who seem desperately 
opposed to it.

                              {time}  1715

  It will allow us to become a more energy independent Nation and do so 
in an environmentally sound manner. While you sleep, while you work, 
while you drive, while you talk to your family and watch TV, the rivers 
are flowing, the tides are moving in and out; power can be generated 
without any more than that. It doesn't take us digging anything up, 
dumping anything in, dredging anything up. It just happens.
  The water power program is designed to develop water technologies and 
address barriers to hydropower, barriers like the permitting process 
that we currently undergo in this Nation which takes companies that 
want to do this

[[Page 11084]]

10 years, minimum, 10 to 15 years to receive a permit. Who invests in 
something that takes that long, that kind of money? The problem is that 
increasingly no one does. So what's right under our feet, what's going 
right past us in our homes, our towns, our rivers, is not being 
utilized, and it's right there. Eight hundred dams currently in this 
Nation could be generating power at this moment.
  Hydropower is available in every region of the country and is 
America's largest source of clean, renewable electricity. It accounts 
for 67 percent of domestic renewable generation and 7 percent of total 
electricity generation. And it creates good-paying jobs. I mean from 
the bottom to the top, everyplace on the spectrum of job creation, 
hydropower creates work for people. It's reliable, proven, and domestic 
technology that can expand in environmentally responsible ways. It can 
be put to work in rivers, harbors, and coastal areas to capture energy 
from currents and tides. Harnessing this energy will create a truly 
renewable and green source of energy.
  I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for the work 
they have done to bring this bill to the floor, and I ask all of my 
colleagues to support 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 reluctantly rise to oppose the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment. First of all, I want to salute 
him for being a strong advocate for water power. I think those of us on 
the committee are as well.
  His amendment would increase, as we're aware, funding for energy 
efficiency and renewable energy by $31 million using the Department's 
administration account as an offset to restore the water power program 
to the requested level. Our allocation, as I've said a number of times, 
made for some really tough choices. Our bill cuts applied energy and 
advanced research programs to allow more funding for inherently Federal 
responsibilities.
  While I support the program championed by my colleague, we can simply 
not afford to increase energy reliable activities so significantly by 
diverting funding from other essential activities within the Department 
of Energy. One of the issues within the Department of Energy is they've 
had management issues. They need money to better manage a lot of the 
activities. They have a new Secretary of Energy. He needs the resources 
to do it. If we keep tapping from this account, there will be no money 
to pay for the management and operation and the accountability we 
expect from the chief executive of this Department. Therefore, I 
reluctantly oppose his amendment and urge Members to do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's well-
intentioned amendment and again reiterate that our budget is simply 
insufficient in our subcommittee to meet all of the needs of the 
country.
  What the gentleman is proposing is to take an additional $31 million 
out of the Department's administrative accounts and to shift them to 
renewable energy systems relating to dams and small dam construction. 
That is a very worthy objective. However, if you know anything about 
the Department of Energy, one of the challenges we face in the 
administrative accounts is getting them to manage their contracts in a 
way that properly oversees taxpayer dollar expenditures. That 
Department has had some of the worst cost overruns I have ever seen in 
my career in Congress, on the nuclear side and on the nonnuclear side. 
So when the gentleman wants to cut administrative costs, my worry is 
that we will not have the kind of rigor that the chairman and I have 
been trying to reinfuse in the Department to better manage the dollars 
that we allow them to spend. And so I think the gentleman's amendment 
runs a real risk of creating mismanagement there simply because they 
don't have the personnel to do the job.
  And so I think that your end purpose is a very, very worthy one. And, 
frankly, we have some small dams in Ohio that would benefit from the 
gentleman's amendment, but I have to come down on the side of rigor and 
proper administration by the Department in all of their accounts, and 
the amount of mismanagement and cost overruns in some of their programs 
is into the billions.
  The administrative accounts overall are only $187 million to manage a 
Department that is over $30 billion worth of expenditures and all kinds 
of contractors, all kinds of cleanup programs that stand on that thin 
reed of $187 million for nationwide contract administration and 
personnel administration.
  So I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I understand 
what he's trying to do, but we simply can't risk improper contract 
management in that Department at this time. I urge opposition to the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PERRY. 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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

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

       Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,127,954,000)''.
       Page 22, line 8, before the period, insert the following:

     Provided, That the amount made available under this heading 
     shall be allocated between programs, projects, and activities 
     previously funded under the heading ``Energy Efficiency and 
     Renewable Energy'' and programs, projects, and activities 
     previously funded under the heading ``Electricity Delivery 
     and Energy Reliability'' in the same proportion as such funds 
     were allocated between such accounts in fiscal year 2013 by 
     division F of Public Law 113-6

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to waive the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I object to waiving the reading, and 
I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment that would restore funding for America's renewable energy, 
energy efficiency, and energy conservation initiatives, restore it to 
the very modest levels of the last year, 2013. These relate to the 
Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy 
initiatives, the Department's electricity delivery and energy 
reliability initiatives as well.
  The problem with the Republican bill is it slashes, it eviscerates 
America's commitment to renewable energy and energy conservation. They 
also have something that I characterize, maybe a term of art, 
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, because they take these 
various accounts and squeeze them in a vise down into a single account; 
and when you take it all together, it is a 57 percent reduction in 
energy efficiency and renewable energy. This is outrageous. It is 
shortsighted, and it is very poor public policy.
  The Republican bill slashes clean energy initiatives that are 
critical to the all-of-the-above energy strategy that I thought we all 
agreed on is needed for

[[Page 11085]]

U.S. energy independence, ranging from solar to wind power and new 
technologies for more energy-efficient buildings and advanced vehicles.
  So I have to say, Mr. Chairman, if I hear any of my Republican 
colleagues say they are for an all-of-the-above approach on energy 
policy, this Energy and Water appropriations bill belies that. It 
really pulls the curtain back on what the plan really is on the other 
side of the aisle.
  The administration has objected, and I agree with them. They write:

       The Republican bill would leave U.S. competitiveness at 
     risk in new markets for clean energy industries such as 
     advanced vehicles, advanced manufacturing, energy efficiency 
     for homes and businesses, and domestic renewable energies 
     such as wind, solar, and biomass.

  They do this at a time when they are content to leave huge taxpayer 
subsidies going to the big oil companies, meanwhile slashing very 
modest investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy 
conservation.
  Specifically, the impact of these cuts will reduce by 50 percent the 
homes weatherized to help our neighbors back home reduce their energy 
bills. And Ranking Member Kaptur was absolutely correct: those working 
class neighbors back home do not have big lobbyists here in Washington, 
D.C. This bill would also significantly delay research on next 
generation technologies that save energy in our homes, our schools, our 
hospitals, and businesses.
  The Republican bill will hinder the development of cost-effective new 
technologies and appliance standards that save Americans money by 
increasing energy productivity. This bill spells a likely demise and 
ends solar energy job training for students and military veterans at 
261 community colleges. The Republican bill will slow efforts to 
modernize and secure the electricity delivery grid and respond to 
energy emergencies.
  I ask simply that we return the funding levels to the very modest 
levels of last year. The amendment also directs that funds be allocated 
in the same proportion as they were in fiscal year 2013.
  These clean energy initiatives are critical to achieving energy 
independence, boosting our economy, creating jobs, and maintaining 
global leadership. Ranking Member Kaptur was absolutely right during 
this debate. She said we are sacrificing our future and not living up 
to the standards of this great country because you're slashing the 
investments that make this country go: investing in innovation and 
technology.
  I'm afraid that it really highlights the broader issue, and that is 
the fact that the Republicans refuse to negotiate on the budget. They 
passed the budget 100 days ago. The Democrats have appointed conferees. 
I don't know what the holdup is, why my Republican colleagues are 
afraid to negotiate on the budget. But in the meantime, here on this 
amendment, we have an opportunity to stand up for jobs, for clean 
energy and the future of our great Nation. I ask support of the Castor 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order 
under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which 
states:
  It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments 
proposing an equal or a greater decrease in such budget authority 
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.
  The amendment proposes a net increase in the budget authority in the 
bill in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The gentlewoman is recognized.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I appreciate that there is a point of order 
brought up, but I think there is a major point of order that faces this 
House of Representatives, and that's the fact that the Democrats have 
appointed conferees to negotiate the budget, and my Republican 
colleagues appear to be afraid to come together and discuss the budget.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will confine her remarks to the 
point of order.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, at this time, I will insist upon a 
vote on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from New Jersey makes a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida violates section 
3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5.
  Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment 
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
  As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from New Jersey, the 
amendment proposes a net increase in the budget authority in the bill. 
Therefore, the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of 
the Chair.

                              {time}  1730

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
stand as the judgment of the Committee?
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
had it.
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.


               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:

       In the item relating to ``Department of Energy--Energy 
     Programs--Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and 
     Efficiency'', after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,826,370)''.
       In the spending reduction account, after the dollar amount, 
     insert ``(increased by $9,826,370).''

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today cuts 
significant amounts from a number of programs which I have 
traditionally targeted for spending reductions.
  Now, I commend my friends, the full committee chairman, Hal Rogers, 
and the subcommittee chairman, also a good friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 
for these cuts, and I congratulate them on such.
  That being said, we're at a time of a real fiscal emergency. Congress 
has allowed the sequester to happen, and we can see some of the effects 
of the sequester in this underlying bill. I opposed the use of the 
sequester from the get-go because I believe that governmentwide, 
across-the-board cuts are not a wise way of cutting spending. I believe 
that it's bad policy.
  Instead of furloughing civilian DOD employees and cutting our 
military, we ought to make targeted cuts where there's room to do so. 
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would do just that. It would trim just a 
small additional 1 percent, or about $9.8 million, from programs 
relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and put that amount 
toward spending reduction.
  The committee report for the underlying bill notes that funding for 
these programs prioritizes reducing gas prices and supporting American 
manufacturing. And absolutely, we must be doing those things. Yet, 
these funds are focused on technologies which are still emerging, like 
new vehicle technology, hydrogen and fuel cell technology, and bio-
energy.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm not arguing that these technologies aren't worth 
studying. What I'm suggesting is that we--and I'm not suggesting that 
we completely defund them. I'm suggesting we make a mere 1 percent cut 
towards the proposed spending level.
  What I'm saying is that we make this small additional cut and work 
towards getting our fiscal house in order before pouring scarce funding 
into new, unproven technology.

[[Page 11086]]

  I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word, and oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from Georgia's amendment would 
further cut funding for renewable energy and energy reliability and 
efficiency program by an additional 1 percent from the levels contained 
in our bill.
  The Energy and Water Development bill cuts levels by $2.9 billion 
below last year's level, including $971 million from renewable energy 
and energy-efficient activities. In just those accounts alone, that's 
50 percent below fiscal year 2013, and 67 percent below the President's 
request.
  To that end, the funding the bill preserves is just as important as 
the funding it cuts. Our bill focuses the vast majority of remaining 
funds within this account on programs that can address high gas prices 
and help American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace. 
These programs can reduce American manufacturing costs, help companies 
compete in that market, creating jobs here at home.
  Reducing Federal spending is critical. That's why the bill reduces 
funding for this account to half its current levels. But we also must 
make strategic investments to address high gas prices and help America 
compete.
  The amendment would eliminate these important programs. I urge 
Members to oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the Broun amendment, and really 
find it somewhat incredible that, in the bill that the majority brought 
forward, the renewable energy accounts have been cut by over half, over 
60 percent already. This gentleman proposes an amendment to cut it by 
an additional 1 percent. And that equals $9,826,370 to an account that 
has already just been drubbed.
  Now, I want to say something here. Here's a chart that shows 
America's trade deficit. And energy, imported energy, comprises the 
largest account. We haven't had a balanced trade deficit since the 
1970s, when the job hemorrhage started in this country. And it gets 
worse every year.
  America's future depends on innovation. We can't continue to live 
like this. Every community you go to in this country, they say, will we 
have to move somewhere because my child can't find a job?
  Or gosh, I just had to get another job and I had my salary cut in 
half.
  It's pretty obvious what's been happening. The major category of 
trade deficit is energy imports, energy, because we are not self-
sufficient in energy production in this country.
  Part of the answer lies in new energy systems, systems that even NASA 
has helped us to begin to invent, yes, in the solar field, yes, in new 
hydrogen technologies like cryogenic hydrogen, yes, in natural gas.
  Thank goodness, the Department invested in fossil fuel technologies. 
That's where the fracking technologies came from. It came from thinking 
about the future, not living in the past.
  So the gentleman's cutting even further into the bone. We've already 
cut to the bone, now you're sort of whacking the spine in half and 
saying, well, let's cut some more there.
  Well, either you live in the future or you live in the past. And I, 
sadly, view the gentleman's amendment as a retreat to the past.
  I want to live in an America that's a can-do nation, an America that 
invents new technologies. And literally, the renewable technologies are 
going to have to be there when the finite resources of carbon-based 
fuels aren't there anymore, because they are finite. They're finite 
globally.
  And I stand here also today for every single soldier in our country 
that's died in the line of duty trying to protect the sea lanes to 
bring that stuff in here because they're trying to help America hold it 
together while she isn't energy-independent here at home.
  So these investments in the future are vital to the future, if one is 
capable of thinking forward about what that future might look like.
  I've seen a technology, sir, that can take a thin filament invented 
by the best scientists this country has. They float it in a nitrogen 
bath and, from point of generation of power to point of use it's 100 
percent energy-efficient, unlike the current transmission technologies 
that we have today, where we lose 25 to 80 percent of our power.
  There has to be a majority in here, 218, that are capable of thinking 
about living in the future and not just the past.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think that he's trying to be a 
good budgeteer, I guess, but in so doing, he cuts off the nose to spite 
his face.
  America deserves to have an energy future, and it won't happen with 
amendments like this one.
  So I oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask my colleagues to vote 
``no,'' and 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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

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

       Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. COHEN (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Tennessee?
  Mr. LAMBORN. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. COHEN (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent, again, that 
we consider it as read. I think my friend from Colorado who shares my 
birth date doesn't understand what is going on. He doesn't want to 
listen to this. Nobody wants to listen to this.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. My amendment, which is worthy of being considered and 
passed, but not necessarily to be heard, would re-appropriate $50 
million from the Weapons Activities account to the Renewable Energy, 
Energy Reliability, and Efficiency account, kind of a compromise about 
what we've been hearing. It doesn't take too much from nuclear. It 
gives some back to solar. It's a compromise where we work together.
  In this bill, the Weapons Activities account, which had been funded 
at $7.7 billion, that's more than $190 million over the President's 
request, and over $95 million more than the account had in 2013. And to 
offset this increase, which the committee voted, the committee decided 
to do so by funding the Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and 
Efficiency account at only $982 million, slashing that account by 
almost 50 percent in this budget.
  While ensuring the security of the United States is certainly very, 
very important, the consequences of ignoring climate change trends and 
data is resulting in a serious and ever-growing threat right here on 
our own soil.
  I know that the goal of everybody here in the House is energy 
independence, and it's a paramount concern to all of us. However, in 
order to achieve this goal, we must dedicate ourselves and our budget 
to the serious business of securing that energy future.

[[Page 11087]]

  Ensuring that our renewable energy research program is adequately 
funded is one of the most effective and climate-neutral ways to achieve 
this goal. For example, solar power is the most abundant energy 
resource available to the planet, and demand for solar power in the 
United States is at an all-time high.
  As solar prices continue to fall, Americans are reassessing their 
energy resources. Cutting funding to projects that make this clean 
energy even more affordable is not prudent, and out of line with the 
priorities of clean-energy minded Americans.
  Renewable energy is secure and domestic, and energy-efficient 
programs not only result in greater resource supplies but savings for 
families and businesses alike.
  According to the Alliance to Save Energy, the President's climate 
plan to double domestic energy production by utilizing methods like 
renewable energy could save the average family household more than 
$1,000 every year on energy bills.
  Investing in renewable energy will result in safer domestic energy, 
job creation in the clean energy sector, and lower heating and cooling 
bills across the country.
  For these reasons and others, and in the best interest of our 
Nation's energy security, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment. I would ask you to spend money on finding research to see 
ways we can come up with renewable energy and improve the savings, and 
save about the future, save it and yet not cut too much from the 
nuclear program, which we already have funded higher than the President 
requested or last year.
  I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, a compromise 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and 
speak in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman's amendment, as he said, would 
increase funding for this EERE account and by cutting weapons 
activities in the NNSA administration and using that as an offset.
  Our bill not only cuts the renewable energy and energy efficiency 
accounts, it also cuts fossil energy by $84 million, 16 percent, 
nuclear energy by 14 percent.
  As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, our allocation made for some tough 
choices. We've placed highest priority on activities in which the 
Federal Government must take the lead. One of those, of course, the 
most critical mass is assuring funding for national security. It's our 
highest priority.
  While I support the programs that he outlines, we should not divert 
to programs from national security. Therefore, I oppose his amendment 
and ask Members to do so as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. LAMBORN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I object to 
where this money is being cut. The amendment would take another $50 
million away from already low amounts for modernizing our nuclear 
stockpile. The President agreed several years ago that he would 
modernize our nuclear stockpile in order to secure ratification of the 
New START Treaty. Under that treaty, both Russian and U.S. forces are 
being reduced; but we have to modernize the force so that we maintain a 
credible deterrent with the remaining weapons after the reductions take 
place.
  The President is not fully funding that obligation. That's troubling 
enough. This committee has lowered what the President recommended to an 
even lower level, and that's even more troubling. If we take this 
amendment for a further reduction, we're really getting into serious 
cuts.
  The trouble with not modernizing our nuclear capability is that we 
will no longer have an effective deterrent. These weapons degrade over 
time. They lose their effectiveness and reliability. If we have allies 
who can't depend on our nuclear deterrent, what are they going to want 
to do? They're going to want to go out and start their own nuclear 
programs. Countries like Korea and Japan are already talking about 
that, by the way. Unless you want more nuclear proliferation in the 
world, you want the U.S. to maintain a serious and credible deterrent 
and have an effective nuclear arsenal.
  So this amendment takes us in the wrong direction. It's not good 
strategically for the United States. It's not a good savings of money, 
and I would urge strong rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. We've had these discussions. We've got enough money in 
nuclear weapons to destroy the world thousands and thousands and 
thousands of times. And I understand defense, but I also understand the 
future. And the future is energy self-reliance. And that comes from the 
Sun. It's not going to be taken out of the Earth. It's going to come 
from the solar energy that God has given us to harness and use for 
mankind.
  So the amendment, in my opinion, is a sound amendment and budgetary 
use. But even more so--and it's getting off the path--the reality is 
the distinguished gentleman made his remarks and said there's nothing 
more important than our Defense Department. I submit to you that we're 
cutting $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health. That's my 
defense department and your defense department and everybody else's 
defense department. Because cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and AIDS, that's the enemy that's going to 
get each one of us. And we're cutting $1.6 from NIH, which is our 
defense department.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


               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:

       In the item relating to ``Department of Energy--Energy 
     Programs--Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and 
     Efficiency'', after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,751,000)''.
       In the spending reduction account, after the dollar amount, 
     insert ``(increased by $4,751,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. This amendment would reduce the appropriations 
that are suggested for the energy programs relating to renewable 
energy, energy reliability, and efficiency by $4.751 million and 
increase the spending reduction account by that same amount. It is 
meant to eliminate the committee-recommended increase to funding for 
facilities and infrastructure under this section of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we must do everything that we can to rein in spending. 
We're facing an economic emergency as a Nation. My friends, 
particularly on the other side, seem to not face the fact that we're 
headed for an economic meltdown if we don't stop this uncontrolled 
spending that I believe is irresponsible.
  My amendment is not a cut to funding, but to simply eliminate a 
proposed

[[Page 11088]]

increase, keeping the appropriated amount at the current level we have 
right now today.
  I believe this is a commonsense amendment, I urge my colleagues to 
support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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's amendment. Our 
bill already cuts the National Renewable Energy Lab, or NREL, within 
the Department of Energy. We cut it by $15 million below the 
President's request. That's a 33 percent reduction. Quite honestly, I 
don't think the facility could take any further reductions that 
undermine this budget consolidation, which is something we've sought, 
something which the Department of Energy has gone ahead with. 
Therefore, I oppose the amendment, and urge others to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from 
Georgia. This is a chart showing U.S. imports of oil since 1973, where 
America is more vulnerable in every succeeding decade. We know that if 
gas prices in this country go over $4 a gallon, we go into deep 
recession.
  We live at the edge every year, and we've seen what happens. So I 
repeat what I've said in prior debates today: either you live in the 
past or you attempt to live in the future and build a future.
  I think that the gentleman's amendment, though it might be well 
intentioned, is moving America backwards. We simply have to address the 
fact that we are not energy independent as a country, and the renewable 
energy accounts are part of that future. We must embrace it. We must 
move our Nation away from complete dependence on foreign sources of 
energy and stand on our own two feet here at home.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask my colleagues to do the same, 
and 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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


                    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:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Takano of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
  First amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 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 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 177, 
noes 236, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               AYES--177

     Andrews
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

[[Page 11089]]



                             NOT VOTING--21

     Barber
     Bass
     Campbell
     Conyers
     Franks (AZ)
     Garcia
     Gosar
     Grijalva
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Kirkpatrick
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Polis
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1821

  Messrs. BRADY of Texas, CULBERSON, ENYART, and DAVID SCOTT of Georgia 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. TITUS, Mr. ELLISON, Ms. SCHWARTZ, and Mr. SCHRADER changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moran

  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). 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 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 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 226, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--188

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--226

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Barber
     Camp
     Campbell
     Franks (AZ)
     Garcia
     Gosar
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Kirkpatrick
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Polis
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1829

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 312, I was in conversation 
with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee discussing matters 
important to the Mississippi National Guard. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Takano

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Takano) 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 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 264, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 313]

                               AYES--152

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern

[[Page 11090]]


     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--264

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barber
     Campbell
     Franks (AZ)
     Garcia
     Gosar
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Kirkpatrick
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Polis
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1836

  Mr. CICILLINE 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. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) 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 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140, 
noes 275, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               AYES--140

     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Cuellar
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huffman
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kuster
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marino
     Markey
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Pascrell
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Radel
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Ruppersberger
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (SC)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--275

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Holt
     Honda
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise

[[Page 11091]]


     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott, Austin
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Turner
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waters
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barber
     Campbell
     Franks (AZ)
     Garcia
     Gosar
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Kirkpatrick
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Polis
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1843

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Pelosi was allowed to speak out of order.)


               Congratulating the Honorable Edward Markey

  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise with the greatest respect, 
admiration, and appreciation to congratulate the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has served nearly 4 
decades in the House of Representatives.
  Two weeks ago, in their wisdom, the people of Massachusetts elected 
him to the United States Senate. I'm pleased to yield to the skillful 
leader, this person of great vision, a legislative virtuoso, a person 
who has served with great values. It is a bittersweet moment for me to 
yield for the last time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlewoman very much.
  Thirty-seven years ago, I stepped off a plane here, and it was my 
first visit in my life to Washington, D.C. I had never been here 
before, and I was sworn in as a Congressman on my first visit to this 
city 37 years ago.
  I am so proud to have been a Congressman here in this Chamber along 
with all of you. For me, the House is democracy in action, all of us 
declaring our love of country and our desire for a better future for 
all of our constituents and for our Nation.
  I am honored to have served here. I am blessed to have made so many 
wonderful friends here. And I am humbled by the dedication of all of 
you to this great Nation. As I have represented Massachusetts, so too 
have each of you represented your States with your conscience.
  I now go to serve in the Senate, but there is a big part of me that 
will always be a man of the House after 37 years having served here in 
this great body.
  With that, for the last time, I say: Madam Chair, I yield back the 
balance of my time.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun) 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 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 257, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               AYES--153

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barr
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cotton
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--257

     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Barber
     Beatty
     Campbell
     Castor (FL)
     Duncan (TN)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garcia
     Gosar
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Kirkpatrick
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Pastor (AZ)
     Polis
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Young (FL)

[[Page 11092]]



                              {time}  1855

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 315 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  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. 
Daines) having assumed the chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, 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. 2609) 
making appropriations for energy and water development and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________