[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11092-11132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2014

  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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2609.
  Will the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) kindly resume 
the chair.

                              {time}  1900


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for 
other purposes, with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) had 
been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 22, line 9.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, 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 $1,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. SWALWELL of California (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent to waive reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my 
amendment, which would transfer $1 million to the Department of 
Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE, 
from administrative funds.
  I recently organized a letter, joined by almost 80 of my colleagues, 
calling for robust and sustained funding for this crucial program. 
EERE's research, development, and deployment programs focus on three 
major fields: renewable electricity generation; sustainable 
transportation; and energy-saving homes, buildings, and manufacturing.
  This program plays a key role in advancing America's all-of-the-above 
energy strategy, and we must set priorities and make smart, strategic 
decisions about Federal funding. This is the only way to ensure that 
this country is prepared for whatever changes the markets may 
experience.
  And I thank our ranking member for yielding me the time and allowing 
me to speak about the amendment, and I appreciate her comments about 
either you look backward or you look forward or you act forward when it 
comes to how we get our energy supply. She has talked on the floor 
today and articulated that our country right now faces a trade deficit, 
and she's right.
  Every month, by about $40 billion, we are importing more goods and 
services than we are exporting. In many cases, that is because of the 
crude oil that we have to import month after month after month because 
we are not meeting our own energy needs. And the United States, at our 
peak production, optimal peak production, we only have about 3 percent 
of the world's crude oil. However, our country, our consumers, our 
people, we consume about 22 percent of the world's crude oil.
  There's a supply problem in this country. We need to not drill our 
way out of this but invent our way out of this, innovate our way out of 
this, and the EERE program allows us to do that.
  Unfortunately, this bill consolidates the Office of Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy within DOE and funds the combined programs at about 
$983 million. The result is a cut to these programs of $971 million 
below fiscal year 2013.
  I am honored to serve as ranking member on the Science, Space and 
Technology Subcommittee on Energy because I believe that the Federal 
Government has a role to play in encouraging energy innovation in this 
country. This bill does just the opposite by gutting the EERE program. 
Instead of innovating our way out, rather than drilling our way out, we 
are doing the opposite. We gut crucial EERE funds.
  As Washington bickers, our competitors are pulling out all of the 
stops to capitalize on the booming clean energy program. By cutting the 
EERE program so drastically now, we all but ensure that the United 
States will miss out on scientific discoveries that could change the 
world and transform our economy.
  With scientific research, nothing is guaranteed, and so we need to be 
willing to take risks. Scientific progress, after all, has never been a 
straight line. I come from the bay area, which includes Silicon Valley, 
where risk-taking is critical to the region's economy. Taking risks 
means sometimes you will not succeed, but scientific progress requires 
us to continue to take risks and invest in the future. Only by taking 
risks and charging forward, as our ranking member continues to 
emphasize, can we ever hope to reach goals which today may seem out of 
reach.
  The United States should be leading the world in the search for 
better, safer, more affordable energy. Instead, we have a bill before 
us that makes unacceptable, shortsighted cuts to EERE. While my 
amendment does not close the gap by any means, it is a signal to our 
scientists and engineers that we support renewable energy.
  An overreliance on a limited range of fuel technologies and finite 
resources is shortsighted. Our strength lies in our ability to 
transition to a new, cleaner, more sustainable and more innovative 
source of energy. We must be competitive and not let ourselves get 
behind, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting Chair. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 11093]]


  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  This amendment offers, as he said, a $1 million gesture of support 
for renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency activities in 
the Department of Energy. It would increase funding by $1 million using 
the departmental administration as its offset.
  While I support my colleague's good intention, what he calls his 
signal gesture of support, we simply cannot afford to increase energy 
efficiency and renewable energy by diverting funding from other 
essential activities. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge others 
to do so as well.
  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, let me say that the gentleman's amendment 
takes a step in the right direction. It is a modest step, but one that 
signals a view towards the horizon that is ahead of us, and I rise in 
support of his very responsible amendment that would make an investment 
in our future and move to a more diversified energy portfolio. It does 
nick an account, our administrative account, which is a bit troubling, 
but it is not at the level that some of the prior amendments today did, 
so I support the gentleman's amendment.
  I thank him for all of the time he spent on the floor today waiting 
his turn. Talk about a gentleman of the House, you surely are. So I 
want to thank Congressman Swalwell for his leadership and for trying to 
take a step toward the future in offering his amendment today. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the Swalwell amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, 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 $731,600,000)''.
       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $362,329,000)''.
       Page 23, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $450,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $115,753,000)''.
       Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,543,929,000)''.

  Mr. McCLINTOCK (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I applaud the committee's decision to 
cut the failed Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by half. 
My amendment simply completes the very good work of the committee and 
cuts it by the other half, along with similar subsidies that we provide 
to nuclear and fossil fuel industries, saving an additional $1.5 
billion.
  If we're serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have got 
to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers based on their 
political connections and, instead, require every energy company to 
compete on its own merits as decided by the customers it attracts by 
offering better products at lower cost and by the investors it 
attracts, as well.
  For too long we've suffered from the conceit that politicians can 
make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can 
make with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced the 
continuing spectacle of collapsing energy scandals epitomized by the 
Solyndra fiasco. At least Solyndra was funded from a loan program in 
which the public has a chance to get some of its money back when these 
dubious schemes go bankrupt.
  My amendment eliminates direct spending that funds research and 
development and commercialization projects for politically favored 
firms, money that taxpayers have no chance of recovering after it's 
spent.
  Let me emphasize that any breakthroughs financed with the research 
and development money paid by the taxpayers under these programs does 
not go into the public domain, where everyone can benefit. These 
innovations, if there are any, are financed by taxpayers and yet are 
owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the private companies. This is a 
gift of public funds, pure and simple.
  My amendment protects taxpayers from being forced into paying the 
research and development budgets of these companies. It gets government 
out of the energy business and requires all energy companies and all 
energy technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with 
their own funds.
  This amendment cuts all such subsidies.
  About half go to fossil fuel and nuclear industries, which are 
capable of doing very well on their own, and about half goes to the so-
called alternative energy technologies. We've been told for years, of 
course, that's necessary to nurture these new and promising programs, 
but they are not new and they are not promising. Photovoltaic cells, 
for example, were invented in 1839; and in nearly 175 years of 
technological research and innovation and billions of dollars of 
taxpayer subsidies, we have not yet invented a more expensive way to 
generate electricity, so we hide its true cost to consumers through 
subsidies taken from their taxes.
  Nor is there any earthly reason why taxpayers should be forced to 
serve as the R&D program for General Motors or any other company or 
technology. The actual research and development should be paid for by 
the companies that will profit from these long-promised breakthroughs. 
And if they're not willing to finance them with their own money, we 
have no business forcing our constituents to finance them with theirs.
  All we have accomplished with these programs is to take dollars that 
would have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising 
technologies and diverted them into those that are politically favored. 
This misallocation of resources not only destroys jobs in productive 
ventures, it ends up minimizing our energy potential instead of 
maximizing it and destroying our wealth instead of creating it.
  Let every energy technology rise or fall on its own merits. If the 
technology is promising, it doesn't need our help; and if it isn't 
promising, it doesn't deserve our help.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The amendment would eliminate all renewable energy and energy 
efficiency activities, fossil energy activities, and severely reduce 
funding for nuclear energy in favor of deficit savings. And, of course, 
the committee has done a lot; we have done a lot of cutting. We are way 
below the 2008 level. I think we have made a commitment in our 
committee to reduce spending and contribute to reducing the deficit.
  Nuclear energy research does keep American innovation at the 
forefront of the technology that we invented. I think we need to 
continue that leadership.
  Fossil energy, whether people like it or not, provides 82 percent of 
our Nation's energy needs, and we need to find ways to refine and make 
it even more productive.

[[Page 11094]]

  Lastly, renewable energy addresses high gas prices and helps 
America's manufacturers compete in the global marketplace. Maybe not 
all of those activities are imperative, but renewable energy is part of 
that equation, and our bill supports diversity of energy supply. 
Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge Members to do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  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. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for raising 
opposition to the amendment. I'm glad he gave me a few moments, Madam 
Chair, to slow down a bit before I would comment on the amendment.

                              {time}  1915

  The author of the amendment would probably want to take a few steps 
more. To carry out the full intent of what he's proposing would be to 
eliminate all subsidies for everything. Then where would we be?
  I suppose if we're going to be consistent in this, if we were to 
adopt this amendment, we ought to go to the oil and gas industry and 
eliminate all of the subsidies that they have, which are tax breaks, 
direct subsidies, by reducing their taxes to the tune of well over $10 
billion a year. Probably not a bad idea. And then to go on, as the 
chairman of the committee has suggested, to take on all of the other 
subsidies.
  Where would we be?
  It's a long history of America, dating back, really, to the Founding 
Fathers, in which Alexander Hamilton presented to the Congress, at the 
request of George Washington, a plan on manufacturers in which was 
stated a policy then and carried forward ever since that time, some 
230-plus years, in which the Federal Government has been directly 
involved in the development of the American industries.
  For example, at that time, Alexander Hamilton suggested that the 
Federal Government ought to support the development of roads, ports, 
and canals, and, in fact, one not far from here received that 
assistance, the Potomac Canal. And ports were built, eventually 
lighthouses were put up, all of them to benefit commerce.
  Abraham Lincoln subsidized, with the consent of Congress and the 
Senate, the Transcontinental Railroad that has helped the gentleman's 
State of California, and my State of California.
  There's a long, long history of America in which the Federal 
Government has directly, indirectly, subsidized the creation of 
industry. We went to the Moon, but we created enormous numbers of 
businesses as a direct result. And in the gentleman's pocket is an 
iPhone or some other device that was directly subsidized by the Federal 
Government.
  Now, if you want to go back and simply forget about progress, then 
carry out this amendment to its fullest extent. I don't think any of us 
want to go there.
  I'd ask for a ``no'' vote on the 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 rise in opposition to this amendment. And 
I listened to the gentleman's arguments, and I just want to point 
something out. The gentleman is saying that private industry will do 
this in any case.
  I have been very engaged in our part of the country with the local 
companies and inventors that are trying to lead America into the 
future. And what's interesting about the start of some of these new 
technologies is, many of these inventors don't have the deep pockets of 
huge multinational corporations.
  And when smaller, high-tech companies start out, maybe these 
inventors have 10, 20, 30 patents to their name, sometimes they launch 
from a cooperative effort with a university base. They don't have the 
funds to do the kind of basic research that's necessary to move their 
technology forward. They need the help of entities like the Department 
of Energy.
  And so it just doesn't happen by magic that one moves a technology 
forward. Most businesses don't have the interest or the funding to put 
into this direct research, basic research. So, for example, with solar, 
which is something our region of the country knows quite a bit about 
because it spun off of the glass industry, just getting seven layers of 
material to adhere takes incredible effort.
  If you are a small inventor, if you are a smaller company, I defy you 
to roll steel so thin, and then find adherents to go with it that will 
hold electrical charges, and then to invent the electrical materials 
that go through there.
  And by golly, over the last 30 years, they have done it. They have 
brought the cost of panels down to a competitive rate. Where we are now 
is storage capacity, moving the electricity from those plates to 
storage systems that will actually be more efficient, and then onto the 
grid.
  So please don't say that the work that they go through, the Americans 
who really do invent our future, who often are blocked by the people 
that sit in this Chamber and can't even imagine what they are up 
against technologically, don't think that what they do doesn't matter.
  And while they're doing this, what do they face, just in the solar 
industry?
  The Chinese dumping 2 million panels globally and pushing down the 
price, a country that's a Communist country, whose economy is a Marxist 
market system, a Leninist market system.
  And we ask our individual inventors to compete with that, and we do 
nothing to help them out?
  By golly, I'd fight for these Americans any day of the year because I 
know the next generation will be more independent than today's 
generation because of what they are doing, and I will do anything in my 
power to help them.
  That is the role of the Government of the United States, to lift up 
those who are trying to make this country free again and separate us 
from those countries and those interests that don't share our political 
values.
  And so I want to be a champion for those who are out there fighting 
for the future. And they're not all big multinationals who have these 
deep pockets they can just reach into, but they're individual Americans 
who are taking what they've learned in their company.
  And they can't finance it alone. Banks won't necessarily do it 
because the technology isn't fully developed. They need a partnership. 
And we're the one partnership at the Federal level that can help lift 
their technology and bring it forward. I'm proud of them.
  And, sir, I oppose your amendment. I think it's a well-intentioned 
amendment. But you know what?
  It doesn't lead us forward, and it really doesn't help those 
inventors and those companies around this country who are leading us 
into the future.
  I ask the membership to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I think 
that, in many ways, this amendment--and I give credit to its author--
encapsulates a debate that's going on, not only between the parties, 
but in America.
  It's premised on a narrative that is utterly ahistorical. It is a 
false narrative. If it's worth doing, the private sector will do it. 
That flies in the face of 237 years of this Republic's history.
  George Washington understood that. He understood that there were 
investments only the Federal Government could make, and he made them.
  Thomas Jefferson, an advocate for small government, also understood 
that. He subsidized the Rogers and Clark expedition that opened up the 
West and created an enormous enterprise for science.
  Mr. Garamendi mentioned the 37th Congress and Abraham Lincoln. In the

[[Page 11095]]

middle of the worst catastrophe this country's experienced, a civil 
war, that Congress understood that we had to make investments as a 
Federal Government if this country was going to prosper and grow, and 
allowed the private sector to take up where we left off.
  And that's why they invested in the Transcontinental Railroad. That's 
why they created the Homestead Act. That's why they created the United 
States Department of Agriculture. That's why they created the land 
grant college/university system.
  The idea that the private sector can do it, we don't need to do it--
well, the Internet was 100 percent a Federal investment. It was called 
DARPANET, and it stayed a Federal investment for 25 years, until the 
commercial application was clear, and then it went private. Whatever we 
invested in DARPANET was worth every penny in how it's transformed 
American life.
  GPS, entirely a Federal investment, not a private sector investment. 
And it's the private sector that's understood the commercial 
applicability.
  That's the partnership that has characterized all of our history, not 
some of it. And to substitute a false narrative for that involvement 
will guarantee that the Chinese will clean our clock in the next 
generation.
  I sat here hours ago and listened to our Republican colleagues from 
Washington and Tennessee say, without fear of understanding their own 
contradiction, we need the Federal Government to clean up these nuclear 
sites, not the private sector, the Federal Government.
  This isn't just a bad amendment. This is about a profound 
philosophical disagreement about the future role of the Federal 
Government.
  Investments have returns. Not all spending is the same, and we need 
to be enhancing investments in this bill, not cutting them back, if we 
want to hand over to the next generation a competitive America that 
still helps provide a shining light upon a hill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Peters of California

  Mr. PETERS of California. Madam Chair, 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 $10,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. PETERS of California (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PETERS of California. Madam Chair, 2 years ago, on September 8, 
2011, San Diego and much of southern California, Arizona, and parts of 
Mexico suffered a huge electric power failure. This was the biggest 
electric power failure in the history of California.
  Millions of people were left without electricity when a 500-kilovolt 
high-voltage transmission line from Arizona to California failed, 
knocking a major nuclear power plant offline. The electricity outage 
led to school and business closures, flight cancellations, suspended 
water service, and dark traffic lights.
  And when the power goes out, it's not just our lights that are 
affected. In the heat without air-conditioning, we're putting the 
health of our seniors and vulnerable populations at risk of health 
failures. So the risks to public safety and health increase, and 
economic disruptions can be hard to recover from.
  We are putting greater load on our grid each day, and the grid faces 
also threats to its cybersecurity. In addition, we've seen extreme 
weather events wreak havoc on the grid. DOE is making great strides to 
strengthen our grid and make it more resilient to all threats, and we 
need to protect this critical infrastructure.
  The Appropriations Committee has recommended $80 million for 
electricity delivery and energy reliability, which is a cut of $32.49 
million from FY '13 levels. My amendment would increase electric 
delivery and energy reliability by $10 million, with an equal offset 
reduction to the DOE's Departmental Administration account. This 
increase will strengthen the electric grid and provide greater power 
reliability for all Americans.
  And the amendment would support the research and technology to 
improve grid strength and reliability. These are more important 
investments than this particular Departmental Administration account.
  This is spending reduction in the long run. The cost of energy 
outages are much greater than what we put in to modernizing and 
strengthening the grid. Every dollar that we put towards making our 
infrastructure more resilient yields $4 in future savings.
  When power goes out, there are huge economic costs. Our modern world 
can't function and perform business transactions without electricity, 
and we need to ensure that the power's there. If it goes out, we need 
to make sure that it gets back on quickly.
  A better grid will save taxpayers money. A better, smarter, more 
modern grid will lead to fewer outages, getting power back faster, and 
savings in costs.
  Madam Chair, I ask for the support of my colleagues, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment. The amendment would increase Renewable Energy, Energy 
Reliability and Efficiency by $10 million using, once again, as others 
have before him, the Departmental Administration account as an offset.
  As I said earlier, our allocation did make for some tough choices. 
One thing we know is that you can't operate a Department of Energy 
unless you have staff doing oversight and doing the tough work of 
reviewing contracts to make sure the money we give them is well spent.
  So with all due respect, I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. 
We cannot divert more money from the essential department activities.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERS of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Perlmutter

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Chair, 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 $15,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER (during the reading). Madam Chair, I move to dispense 
with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 11096]]


  Mr. PERLMUTTER. To the ranking member and the chairman of the 
subcommittee, thank you for your work. H.R. 2609 appropriates $30.4 
billion for fiscal year 2014 for the Energy Department and Federal 
water projects, which is $4.1 billion below the President's request and 
$6.3 billion, or 17 percent, below the enacted level for 2013.
  The reductions in H.R. 2609 undermine America's strategic energy 
investments and remove vital funding for laboratories such as the 
National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado. Facilities such as 
NREL are leading proponents in energy research and innovation. The 
clean energy market has grown exponentially from $1 billion a year to 
$211 billion per year over the past decade. This number continues to 
grow.
  Congress should be funding facilities which help to bring next-
generation renewable technologies to market. These technologies are not 
only helping local energy entrepreneurs but are also helping business 
owners drive down energy costs.
  The Energy Systems Integration Facility, otherwise known as ESIF, 
located at the National Renewable Energy Lab, is a perfect example of 
this kind of partnership. ESIF is the Nation's only facility to model 
on a megawatt scale how clean energy technologies such as wind and 
solar interact on the electrical grid with traditional energy sources 
such as coal and natural gas. The facility is aimed at overcoming 
generation transmission distribution and end-use challenges to support 
a cleaner, affordable, and more secure U.S. energy mix, including 
research into next-generation building technologies, microgrids, energy 
storage batteries, and utility-scale renewable energy.
  As the cost of clean energy technologies continues to come down, 
seamless and efficient grid integration will help make these resources 
and products even more affordable. Funding for programs like ESIF and 
labs like the National Renewable Energy Lab is good for our utilities 
and our consumers. It's good for our economy, and it's good for energy 
security. Yet the majority continues to believe that cuts to our Energy 
Department will provide us a brighter future. I say, No way.
  Lastly, while I believe the funding in the entirety of this bill is 
wholly inadequate, I cannot allow our energy investments to be reduced 
to rubble. My amendment would transfer $15 million to the Office of 
Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency, with an equal 
offsetting reduction from the Production Support for the W76-(1) Life 
Extension Program under the Weapons Activities account.
  While I appreciate the committee's attempt to support the National 
Renewable Energy Lab, the proposed funding of $31 million is $15 
million below the budget request. Thus, my amendment seeks to fully 
fund the Facilities and Infrastructure line item. The committee 
recommends to the House we fund $345 million for Production Support, 
which is an additional $23.5 million over the administration's request. 
The administration sites a lower level of funding from fiscal year 2013 
to 2014 due to the completion of a modern manufacturing floor process. 
So what the committee has done is raise $23.5 million over the 
President's request. I'm asking that that be backed up by $15 million 
so that the National Renewable Energy Lab and EERE is increased by $15 
million.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. This 
amendment would increase funding for Renewable Energy, Energy 
Reliability and Efficiency activities of the Department of Energy by 
$15 million using Weapons Activities within the Nuclear National 
Nuclear Security Administration as an offset. While I and I think all 
the committee members support the programs championed by my colleague, 
we simply cannot afford to increase efficiency and renewable energy 
activities by diverting funding from inherently Federal 
responsibilities. The focus and primary responsibility of the 
Department of Energy is indeed to make sure that we have a modern 
nuclear weapons stockpile, even if we don't need to use it. It has to 
be verified by the Secretary to the President. So this would divert 
funds from that essential mission.
  I oppose the amendment, urge Members to do likewise, and 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.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I am quite reluctant to shift funds from the 
weapons accounts to other purposes within the Department. But I rise in 
support of this gentleman's amendment. Congressman Perlmutter of 
Colorado has made a reasonable proposal here. I agree with his interest 
in advancing our work in renewable energy technologies.
  In working with the Department, we also know the incredible cost 
overruns that we see occur year after year after year in these nuclear 
weapons accounts. I think that the gentleman's amendment is a modest 
amendment. I think it signals movement in the proper direction for our 
country.
  It also says to those managing our nuclear weapons accounts that 
we're paying attention to the fact that you probably wasted more money 
and have not done oversight on your contracts more than almost any 
other department in the Government of the United States.
  The need for investment in new energy technologies is important to 
the country. I think the gentleman has done something that I think 
moves us down the road of new technology and takes a very modest amount 
from the weapons accounts, and my own position generally supports the 
administration's efforts not to touch the weapons accounts unless we do 
so within the context of nuclear arms reduction negotiations. But the 
amount of funds that you are transferring, I think, is very, very 
reasonable, and therefore I wish to support you in your amendment, and 
I would urge my colleagues to support the Perlmutter amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Connolly

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam 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 $15,500,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I have wracked my brain to try to find a Democratic 
amendment that the distinguished Republican manager could support, and 
I know I have hit upon it. It's a low-impact amendment, modest in the 
extreme, but with high payoff and gravy: a $3 million net savings, 
according to the scoring.
  As we've learned time and time again, Madam Chairman, from weather 
disasters and other emergencies, having a reliable and resilient energy 
structure is absolutely vital to national security, our economy, and to 
the stability of the community. I appreciate the committee 
acknowledging in its report the current strain being placed on our 
aging power infrastructure and the need for more modern, efficient 
systems. In fact, I and other members of the Sustainable Energy

[[Page 11097]]

and Environmental Caucus have been advocating for increased Federal 
investments to meet those very needs for some time.
  The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research and Development 
account--a mouthful, I admit--which supports the very technologies that 
will help modernize our power grid, unfortunately, is cut in this bill 
by 50 percent. I'm offering, as I said, this simple, modest, 
commonsense amendment I know will appeal to the Republican manager by 
transferring a mere $15.5 million from the Nuclear Weapons Activity 
Account, which received a $98 million increase above last year. This 
also would reduce outlays actually by $3 million, according to the CBO.
  One of the energy-efficient initiatives that has a proven track 
record of improving power reliability, reducing electric costs, and 
creating jobs is combined heat and power, for example. It provides 
simultaneous production of electricity and heat from a single fuel 
source such as natural gas, biomass, coal, or oil.
  During conventional power generation, up to two-thirds of the energy 
from the fuel used to generate power is lost as wasted heat. In 
contrast, combined heat and power systems capture that thermal heat 
that would otherwise be lost, making these systems twice as efficient. 
Thanks to that onsite generation, there's less risk of power disruption 
and improved efficiency.
  We've already seen the success of such systems. When Superstorm Sandy 
knocked out power to 8.5 million residents in the Northeast, including 
the distinguished Republican manager's home State of New Jersey, those 
facilities with combined heat and power systems had working electricity 
and heat. South Oaks Hospital on Long Island, for example, which 
includes a nursing home and an assisted living center, was able to 
maintain power during the storm and its aftermath. Similarly, during 
Katrina, Mississippi Baptist Medical Center was the only hospital in 
the Jackson, Mississippi, area to remain 100 percent operational during 
and after the hurricane.
  Combined heat and power systems are currently used across the Nation 
and generate 82 gigawatts of electricity. That's about 9 percent of the 
total. That's the equivalent of 130 coal plants. Analysts say we can 
double that figure; and with the lower price of natural gas and new 
interest from the States that have suffered from natural disasters, the 
timing is ripe. These investments not only lead to a more efficient use 
of power but they also help create jobs. It's estimated that for each 
gigawatt of combined heat and power capacity, we can expect more than 
2,000 jobs to be created.
  The Federal Government has supported deployment of combined heat and 
power systems primarily in the manufacturing sector; but we need to 
expand that success to commercial and residential settings, especially 
after the experiences of Katrina and Sandy.
  This is, as I said, a simple, commonsense amendment largely crafted 
to try to help the Republican manager find a Democratic amendment he 
can enthusiastically support.
  With that, Madam Chairman, 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. Let me say it may be the relative lateness of the 
hour, but I welcome the comity with which you put forward your 
amendment.
  May I just say for the record that having handled the Hurricane Sandy 
supplemental, I can make you aware that our power was off in our very 
modern part of northern New Jersey for the vast number of my 
constituents for over 2\1/2\ weeks. Even despite the best minds in the 
Nation, some of which still circle around the remains of Bell 
Laboratories, we still didn't get it right. But having said that, I 
appreciate your intent and your good humor.
  Our primary focus has been national defense and nuclear security. I 
don't think this is the time when we should be taking away from that 
modernization project, which is important and something which has to be 
certified in terms of being reliable to the President by the Secretary 
of Energy.
  So I oppose the amendment, and 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.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I just want to briefly extend support to the Connolly 
amendment for the same reason as in the prior amendment offered by Mr. 
Perlmutter. And though I generally support nuclear security issues in 
the context of arms reduction talks, this is a modest amendment. It is 
a $15.5 million transfer from the weapons account, where we have seen 
huge cost overruns.

                              {time}  1945

  I think it's important to send a little smoke signal their way that 
we're paying attention and to support the cause of renewable energy in 
the Connolly amendment. I would urge my colleagues to support it and 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

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

       Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $145,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.

  Mr. TONKO (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. First, I would like to thank Representative Welch and 
Representative Sablan for working with me on this amendment, and I 
thank the gentlelady from Ohio for the opportunity to chair the 
amendment in the House.
  Madam Chair, this bill would be fine if we were still living in the 
1950s, in a world where we had few energy limitations, no knowledge of 
the fact that burning fossil fuels would alter the chemistry of our 
atmosphere and the trajectory of our Earth's climate. We lived in a 
world where energy was much more affordable and a world where the 
United States was the dominant economic and manufacturing power. It was 
also a time when there were two nuclear powers, and we believed that 
nuclear weapons were a guarantee of security.
  Well, it is not the 1950s, and this bill does not meet our present or 
future needs. The overall funding level is too small, and the funding 
distribution reflects the wrong priorities. Our amendment addresses 
just two of the important programs that are grossly underfunded in this 
bill: the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy 
Program.
  Energy is a significant part of families' budgets, and its cost is 
especially burdensome for low-income families and the elderly who live 
on fixed incomes. Burning fossil fuels generates emissions that are 
leading us into a much warmer future and one with unstable, unusual 
weather patterns. We cannot afford to reduce our support of energy 
efficiency.

[[Page 11098]]

  Our amendment provides additional funds in the Energy Efficiency 
account to raise the funding for the State Energy Program from the $12 
million in the bill to $50 million. In addition, it provides an 
increase of $107 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program to 
restore this program to $184 million, a level that will provide 
benefits to homeowners across this country.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program is the largest residential 
efficiency program in the Nation. The sequestration and low allocation 
for fiscal year 2013 have put this important program at risk in many of 
our States.
  The demand has not gone away. Individual consumers are still faced 
with significant energy bills, and those who are elderly or disabled or 
whose income is not sufficient to make investments in weatherization 
themselves rely heavily on this program for assistance.
  The amendment also restores funds for the State Energy Program. SEP 
is a cost-shared program, a partnership between the Federal Government 
and the States. The State Energy Program enables States to assist with 
the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, 
such as improving the efficiency at our hospitals and our schools, 
working with utilities and energy service companies to install clean 
energy and energy efficiency projects, and supporting private sector 
energy innovations through business incubators and job training.
  Each dollar of SEP funding produces significant returns. A study by 
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that every dollar of SEP 
Federal funds are leveraged by $10.71 of State and private funds and 
results in $7.22 in energy cost savings.
  The modest investments we have made in these two programs have paid 
for themselves many times over throughout the country. They have 
produced benefits in the form of better insulated, more comfortable 
homes, jobs, savings on energy bills, product improvements, and greater 
energy security.
  We continue to ignore problems, neglect our infrastructure, and 
disinvest in our communities at our peril. These programs make a modest 
but important contribution to job creation and energy security. I urge 
you to support this amendment and keep the important work done through 
these programs moving forward.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey may state his point 
of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes to amend 
portions of the bill not yet read.
  The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in 
the bill.
  The object being increased has first year outlays of $72,500,000. The 
objects being decreased have decreased first year outlays of 
$71,250,000, leading to a net outlay increase of $1,250,000.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the 
bill--as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations--
it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill 
not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Takano

  Mr. TAKANO. Madam 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 $20,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $20,000,000)''.

  Mr. TAKANO (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I would ask that the reading 
continue.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill to increase 
funding for the Vehicles Technologies Program. My amendment increases 
funding for the Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency 
account by $20 million to fully fund the Zero Emission Cargo Transport 
grant program.
  The Vehicle Technologies Program is an important asset in the effort 
to decrease the impact of high gas prices on American drivers by 
investing in technologies that make vehicles more fuel efficient and 
less harmful to air quality. One critical piece of this program is the 
Zero Emission Cargo Transport grant program that helps to incentivize 
zero emission goods movement, especially in areas with high air 
pollution and traffic congestion, such as my district in Riverside, 
California, which is a logistics hub for southern California. I believe 
these funds are better spent reducing our emissions, improving air 
quality, and investing in energy-efficient technologies.
  The bill does take from the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's account, which is funded at $11 billion. The modest 
reduction we're asking in that account to fully fund this program is an 
investment we believe is wise. More efficient freight will save money, 
create jobs, and make products cheaper. Cleaner air improves quality of 
life and lowers the cost of health care.
  If we pay for this today by decreasing spending on our bloated 
nuclear weapons programs, we will see major savings down the road. This 
is a smart investment, and I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The gentleman from New 
Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  As I said on other occasions, ensuring adequate funding for the 
modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is our highest priority 
in our Energy and Water Development bill. This amendment unacceptably 
strikes funding for these very critical national security investments, 
and therefore I oppose the amendment and ask others to do as well.
  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. Takano

  Mr. TAKANO. 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 $40,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.

  Mr. TAKANO (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent to dispense 
with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 11099]]


  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 Weatherization Assistance 
Program.
  My amendment increases funding for the Renewable Energy, Energy 
Reliability and Efficiency account by $40 million to ensure we provide 
adequate weatherization assistance.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program provides much-needed funding 
that enables low-income families, homeowners with disabilities, and 
seniors to permanently reduce their energy bills, making their homes 
more energy efficient.
  For 36 years, the Weatherization Assistance Program has provided 
weatherization services to more than 7.3 million low-income households. 
The energy conservation efforts promoted through this program have 
helped our country reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while lowering 
the cost of energy for families in need.
  This program benefits households across the Nation, from my district 
in Riverside, California, where temperatures can rise to over 100 
degrees Fahrenheit in the summer, to the Northeast, where it is below 
freezing in the winter.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program has helped reduce the energy 
bills for America's neediest families by hundreds of dollars, which can 
be used to purchase more groceries, daily necessities, and child care.
  The reduction in funding for nuclear weapons means that a larger 
investment can be made in our Weatherization Assistance Program to help 
American families reduce their energy costs. The underlying bill 
provides more than $11 billion for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. I believe the modest reduction of $40 million to the 
nuclear weapons account is money that is better spent on programs like 
the Weatherization Assistance Program. It supports jobs, businesses, 
homeowners, and reduces our energy dependence.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Again, our committee's priorities are well known. 
The modernization of our nuclear stockpile is a national security 
issue. We need to continue to make those investments.
  I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. 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.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             Nuclear Energy

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, and the purchase of not more than 10 buses and 
     2 ambulances, all for replacement only, $656,389,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which such sums as may be 
     necessary shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, to be 
     made available only to support the high-level waste 
     geological repository at Yucca Mountain: Provided, That of 
     the amount provided under this heading, $87,500,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2015, for program direction: 
     Provided further, That of the amount provided under this 
     heading, $5,000,000 shall be made available to affected units 
     of local government, as defined in section 2(31) of the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(31)), to 
     support the Yucca Mountain high-level waste geological 
     repository, as authorized by such Act: Provided further, That 
     funds derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund may be transferred 
     to ``Independent Agencies--Nuclear Regulatory Commission--
     Salaries and Expenses'' to support the Yucca Mountain high-
     level waste geological repository license application.


                amendment Offered by mr. heck of Nevada

  Mr. HECK of Nevada. 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 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, my amendment builds on the 
committee's work in support of scientific research and development 
within the Department of Energy.
  More than 30 years have elapsed since Congress passed the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act, and over that same time, technology and scientific 
knowledge have evolved significantly. However, Congress still clings to 
outdated technology and policy prescriptions to address today's nuclear 
waste issues.
  The fact, Mr. Chair, is that sticking our country's highly 
radioactive nuclear waste in a hole in the ground for perpetuity is a 
21st century solution.

                              {time}  2000

  Instead, we must encourage the use of 21st century technology to 
address this issue.
  My amendment redirects the $25 million designated for the Yucca 
Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository into the High Energy 
Physics program within the Department of Energy's Office of Science for 
the development of a 21st century solution to this problem.
  The High Energy Physics program is currently researching and 
developing ways to use accelerator technology to reduce the toxicity of 
nuclear waste, transforming it into a more stable, less hazardous form.
  According to a report released by the Department of Energy, ``The 
United States, which has traditionally led the world in the development 
and application of accelerator technology, now lags behind other 
Nations in many cases, and the gap is growing.'' The report concludes 
that ``to achieve the potential of particle accelerators to address 
national challenges will require a sustained focus on developing 
transformative technological opportunities, accompanied by changes in 
national programs and policy.''
  Other countries have already made significant investments in the 
research and development of accelerator technology that will help make 
long-term storage facilities, like the facility supported in this bill, 
obsolete. It is time that the United States begins to make up the 
ground it is losing to the rest of the world when it comes to 
accelerator technology and begin focusing on 21st century solutions to 
deal with nuclear waste.
  For Nevada, the site of Yucca Mountain and the State with one of the 
highest unemployment rates in the country, this 21st century solution 
has the potential to create countless new high-paying R&D jobs 
utilizing existing regional technology capabilities. We cannot allow 
our Nation to continue falling further behind other developed countries 
in fully funding and implementing these types of projects--21st century 
solutions that are critical to maintaining our Nation's economic and 
technological superiority.
  I urge my colleagues to embrace the future of nuclear waste disposal 
and support my amendment to help create jobs and restore the United 
States role as a leader in science and technology development, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from 
Nevada's amendment.
  First of all, while I appreciate the concerns that he has raised 
about the Office of Science, just for the record, the Office of Science 
has been funded at $32 million above the current post-sequester levels, 
so they have plenty of money.

[[Page 11100]]

  I rise, more importantly, on the second issue. This money comes from 
$25 million that we've set aside to address Yucca Mountain where we, as 
taxpayers, have put well over $12 billion to $15 billion of investment 
as a repository for high-level nuclear waste. We understand the 
dynamics of the State and resistance on the part of many there, but we 
also know that if we are ever to recoup that investment in the future, 
since consumers and taxpayers pay for that facility, that we are going 
to need some money to reopen Yucca Mountain.
  I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, urge others to do so as 
well, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nevada is on to a 
very, very important issue here: What are we going to do with spent 
nuclear fuel? Our current light water reactors consume maybe 3 percent 
of the energy in the nuclear fuel. You can reprocess it once and you 
get another 3 percent, and so now you've got 93, 92 percent, or 94 
percent, of the energy that you now consider as waste, in this case to 
be permanently stored at Yucca Mountain.
  We actually have a 20th century solution. We spent some $10 billion 
to $12 billion on it in the '60s, '70s, '80s, and in 1993 we put that 
solution aside. We need to bring that solution back into place, and the 
gentleman's amendment would further us in dealing with this issue of 
spent nuclear fuel. It is not a waste; it is an extraordinary asset, 
and it's one that we should be utilizing. In doing so, we can dispose 
of it through multiple recyclings, all of which has been proved by the 
United States, readily available today.
  We need to take it out of the closet, put it back on the front 
burner, and use the accelerator technologies in our reactors to 
adequately dispose of these very dangerous wastes. In doing so, we can 
not only dispose of the total longevity, we can take it from a couple 
of hundred thousand years down to a couple of hundred years of 
dangerous radioactive emissions.
  We need to move on this. The gentleman's amendment allows us to do 
that. It solves a major problem that the entire world has. Spent 
nuclear fuel is an international problem.
  The United States Government in the 1960s recognized this as a 
problem, set out to solve it, did solve it with what is known as the 
integral fast reactor--integral fast reactor. That is the accelerator 
reactor integral in that the reprocessing is a metallurgic process, not 
an aqueous process that can only be used once. This can be used 
multiple times, and in so doing eliminate much of the problem that we 
have with spent nuclear fuels.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this very, very important amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment 
as well, which would strike language from the bill that mandates more 
wasteful spending on the defunct Yucca Mountain project and would 
redirect the funding to the Office of Science High Energy Physics 
program to support research in reducing nuclear waste.
  The bill requires that DOE spend $25 million on activities at Yucca 
Mountain, located less than 100 miles from one of the Nation's most 
popular tourist destinations.
  Now, let me remind you that the Department of Energy has already 
wasted $15 billion on this project with nothing to show for it but a 
big hole in the ground in the desert. In fact, had the Department of 
Energy not terminated the Yucca project in 2010, we would be throwing 
away at least another $67 billion with no guarantee that the project 
would ever be completed or functional.
  All of this, let me remind you again, despite findings by the GAO 
that over the past 20 years the proposed site has suffered from gross 
mismanagement, faulty science and research, and contract violations. 
Even more troubling to the people of Nevada and those living along the 
transportation route, questions about the safety and design of the site 
and its impacts on the surrounding environment and populations have 
never, never been satisfactorily addressed.
  Yet, while cutting ARPA-E, which is vital to our competitiveness in 
the global economy, stripping investments in energy efficiency, and 
renewable energy development, this legislation mandates that millions 
be squandered in an effort to restart a boondoggle that has been doomed 
from the start.
  Now, why, I ask you, are we throwing good money after bad ideas? We 
should not be turning back the clock, we should be moving forward. So I 
would say to my colleagues, please support this amendment. It will 
eliminate economic waste and allow Congress instead to have a proper 
discussion about how to dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of Chairman 
Frelinghuysen's opposition to the Heck amendment.
  We have heard quite a bit of rhetoric on the floor the last 10 
minutes about Yucca Mountain, and I understand my colleagues from 
Nevada's opposition to a project in their State or their district that 
was somewhat unilaterally sited there. I will accept that the process 
by which Yucca Mountain was initially chosen was a political process 
and was not done the way the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 
said it should be done.
  Having said that, we have collected about $30 billion over the last 
30-some-odd years from ratepayers whose electricity is generated by 
safe, efficient, clean nuclear power--$30 billion. We have spent 
upwards of $20 billion drilling a tunnel in Yucca Mountain, studying 
the geology, the hydrology, the environment. My understanding is that 
the tunnel is completed.
  In 2010, unilaterally, the Obama administration decided to shut the 
project down. It is debatable whether they did that legally or not.
  Having said that, the bill that's coming out of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee, all it does is allocate money that has already been 
collected to go ahead and finish the site review at Yucca Mountain to 
determine whether it is, in fact, a safe place to store high-level 
nuclear waste.
  Now, keep in mind that we have over 100 operating nuclear reactors 
around the country today, and the waste that they generated is stored 
onsite--stored onsite. There's good security. Most of it is stored in 
what are called ``wet pools.'' Almost everybody agrees that that's not 
a long-term solution.
  I think the Congress on a bipartisan basis can agree that we ought to 
go ahead and finish the review of the Yucca Mountain site--$25 million 
does it. It has also allocated some funding in the bill to help the 
local government entities out there. Let's finally put this thing to 
rest.
  The gentleman's amendment is well intentioned, but we need a 
centralized high-level repository. As of now, the most likely place is 
at Yucca Mountain. We have spent billions--billions of dollars--on that 
site. Let's spend another $25 million and finish the job.
  I join Chairman Frelinghuysen in opposing the Heck amendment and hope 
the House also does that.
  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 reluctant opposition to the 
amendment.
  While I understand our colleague's position, our Nation has spent 
upwards of $10 billion to $15 billion on Yucca Mountain as a 
repository.
  When we first voted on Yucca Mountain many years ago, I opposed it. 
Now our Nation has made this enormous investment and one does question 
whether we know what we are doing and

[[Page 11101]]

whether what we are left with is a monument to wasted resources.
  Admittedly, the court cases have not been finalized. The former 
Secretary of Energy has stated many times that the administration would 
follow any direction that resulted from ongoing litigation. The bill 
provides funds should that eventuality occur.
  At a minimum, we should learn if the licensing process can work. It 
was not that many years ago that completing the licensing process was 
the stated plan of the Department.
  So again, I reluctantly oppose the amendment being offered tonight. 
America has to reach a decision about what we do with spent nuclear 
waste. I think this amendment takes us in the wrong direction at this 
time.
  We also respect the sensitivities of the people of Nevada. They have 
a right to have their voices heard in this process. But as a country, 
we have to recognize the amount of money that's been spent by taxpayers 
from all of the States and the need that we have at these power plants 
and facilities to process this material.
  I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment in hopes that we 
can reach agreement as a country on this important issue, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HECK of Nevada. 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 Nevada will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  2015


            Amendment Offered by Ms. Brownley of California

  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 25, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an important 
amendment that would provide a $5 million increase in funding for the 
Department of Energy Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account.
  My amendment is offset by reducing a small portion of funds for 
nuclear energy research programs. I believe this offset is appropriate 
because the contamination that must be cleaned up was directly caused 
by past Department of Energy nuclear energy research programs.
  In the past, inadequate safety protocols and lax environmental 
standards resulted in severe soil and groundwater contamination at 
sites across the Nation. The DOE Office of Environmental Management is 
responsible for cleaning up 107 sites across the country whose areas 
are equal to the combined area of Rhode Island and Delaware. A few of 
these sites the DOE is responsible for cleaning up include: the Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, of which we've spoken today; 
the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California, which is adjacent to 
my district and to many of my constituents impacted by this facility; 
the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York; and the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory in New Mexico.
  The President's fiscal year 2014 budget requested $212 million for 
environmental remediation and site cleanup. However, this bill provides 
only $194 million for these environmental cleanup activities.
  I understand that the Energy and Water Subcommittee was forced to 
make difficult choices due to an inadequate budget allocation. However, 
I believe that the cleanup of these sites should be a top priority. We 
should not continue to fund new nuclear energy research while 
communities across the country are told to wait for the cleanup of our 
past mistakes.
  For instance, the Energy Technology Engineering Center, which is part 
of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, is highly contaminated due to a 
partial nuclear meltdown of a sodium reactor in 1959. This partial 
nuclear meltdown, which was covered up until 1989, contaminated the 
soil and groundwater in the entire area and has resulted in cancer 
clusters among nearby residents and my constituents. In fact, many of 
those who worked at the facility or who lived nearby died due to 
illnesses caused by the widespread nuclear fallout of the 1959 
meltdown. Cleaning up the soil and groundwater contamination at Santa 
Susana and at other sites across the country is our responsibility to 
our constituents who suffer from the effects of these past mistakes.
  My amendment simply increases this cleanup account by $5 million for 
a total of $199 million, which is still below the $212 million 
requested by the President.
  I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to increase 
funds for the Department of Energy Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup 
account. As I conclude, I believe it is critically important that 
Congress provide funding to clean up areas contaminated by past 
Department of Energy activities and mistakes. I urge Members to support 
my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.
  The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in 
the bill: Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup outlays at 65 percent, an 
increase in outlays of $3,250,000; and nuclear energy outlays at 55 
percent, a decrease in outlays of $2,750,000, resulting in a net 
increase in outlays of $500,000.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair at this time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard? If not, the 
Chair will rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California proposes a net increase in the level of 
outlays in the bill--as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Appropriations--it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address 
portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I move to appeal the ruling of 
the Chair.
  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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     $450,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That $115,753,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2015, for program direction: Provided further, That for all 
     programs funded under Fossil Energy appropriations in this 
     Act or any other Act, the Secretary may vest fee title or 
     other property interests acquired under projects in any 
     entity, including the United States.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield

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

[[Page 11102]]

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

       Page 23, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $29,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $127,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $98,000,000)''.

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask that the 
amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  H.R. 2609 seems to decimate funding for the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency-Energy programs.
  In reading the bill, it appears that the bill cuts ARPA-E funding by 
some $215 million--that's 81 percent--effectively terminating this 
program. At the same time, the bill provides $98 million in additional 
funds for nuclear weapons activities, and it even provides $29 million 
beyond the President's budget request for fossil fuels energy and 
research development. My amendment would shift that extra funding to 
fund ARPA-E and continue important investments in innovation that keep 
our Nation globally competitive.
  ARPA-E is modeled after the successful Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, which helped develop global positioning systems and 
stealth fighter technologies. Since 2009, ARPA-E has helped fund 275 
innovative energy technology projects, and we are beginning to see the 
positive benefits. ARPA-E projects have doubled energy density for 
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and have developed microbes to use 
hydrogen and carbon dioxide to make liquid transportation fuel. The 
many important innovations made possible by ARPA-E have resulted in 
millions of dollars of economic activity in the private sector.
  In my district in North Carolina, the Research Triangle Institute in 
Durham has developed technologies to dramatically reduce the cost of 
carbon capture to coal-fired power plants. This valuable technology 
will increase our energy efficiency, reduce climate change, and create 
jobs. RTI has also received funding to enhance economic and energy 
security by converting biomass resources, such as leaves and corn 
husks, into transportation fuel. They have developed some of these 
fuels already and intend to test them at a local military facility in 
the very near future.
  Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that we must remain globally 
competitive in energy industries to continue to create the jobs of the 
future. ARPA-E provides critical funding for new technologies, which 
will strengthen our economy and lead us to energy sustainability. 
Eliminating the ARPA-E program will harm our competitiveness and will 
cost jobs in emerging energy industries, so I urge my colleagues 
tonight 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. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. His 
amendment would increase funding for ARPA-E by $127 million, using 
offsets from weapons activities and our Fossil Energy account.
  While I support the ARPA-E program personally, we simply cannot 
afford to divert funds from our highest priorities, which are the 
nuclear weapons modernization program. The Fossil Energy account has 
been cut already, and I don't think it should sustain any further cuts, 
so 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 North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. 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 North 
Carolina will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

       For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities, $14,909,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior 
     years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $189,400,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

       For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve storage, operation, and management activities 
     pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6201 et seq.), $8,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   Energy Information Administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $100,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                   Non-defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental 
     cleanup 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, $194,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed

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

       Page 25, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $18,956,000)''.
       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,478,000)''.
       Page 31, line 1, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,478,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment 
involving the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup programs for America.
  What I seek to do with this amendment is to increase this line by $19 
million. I recognize the hard work of the subcommittee and of the 
subcommittee chairman in addressing the fiscal needs of our country and 
in reducing the overall spending in this appropriations bill. In regard 
to this line in particular, it is presently scheduled, as proposed, to 
be reduced by $42 million. I recognize the fiscal crisis that we face 
in America, but this amendment reestablishes $19 million to that line 
because it is a wise investment.
  It is a wise investment because of sites such as that in my district, 
the West Valley Demonstration facility, which is dealing with the issue 
of non-defense environmental waste cleanup. By reestablishing this $19 
million, it has been reported to our office that, essentially, what we 
will save in the long term is approximately $262 million over the next 
5 years. That is because of the positive steps that these facilities 
have made. With a significant reduction in spending, as proposed by the 
subcommittee and under the proposed legislation, that positive progress 
will cease, and what we will end up doing is making larger investments 
over a longer period of time to recover and clean up this nuclear waste 
that is at these facilities across America.
  I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, that we have worked in a 
bipartisan manner on this bill. My colleague from New York, Brian 
Higgins, has helped our office, working hand in hand with us on this 
effort--as well as with Mr. Matheson from Utah and Bill Johnson on our 
side of the aisle--to try to come together and just make a wise, 
commonsense investment while recognizing the fiscal difficulty that we 
face across America.
  I applaud our subcommittee chairman for the work that he has done in

[[Page 11103]]

regard to this bill, and I ask our subcommittee chairman to support 
this amendment as well as for all fellow Members on both sides of the 
aisle to stand with this amendment in a commonsense way in order to 
save taxpayer dollars in the long term and, at the same time, get rid 
of a true problem, which is this non-defense nuclear waste that is now 
located at facilities across America. With that, I ask my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIGGINS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
bipartisan amendment, which seeks to adequately fund the Non-Defense 
Environmental Cleanup program. Our amendment ensures that nuclear 
cleanup sites get the funding they need to protect communities, 
including western New York, from radioactive contamination.
  The West Valley Nuclear Waste Reprocessing plant, established in 
response to a Federal call to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, has since 
ceased operations, leaving behind more than 600,000 gallons of high-
level radioactive waste. To say this is a public safety and 
environmental hazard is a massive understatement.

                              {time}  2030

  We have already seen a leak develop into a plume of radioactive 
groundwater. And if this radioactive waste makes its way into the Great 
Lakes, the environmental and economic implications would be 
devastating.
  It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to not let funding 
shortfalls delay further cleanup. For West Valley alone, further delays 
would add an additional $30 million in maintenance costs per year. Like 
paying a minimum on a credit card, not committing adequate funding only 
delays progress and adds cost.
  I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Congressman Tom Reed, on 
this very important issue, and I urge bipartisan support for this 
important amendment.
  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 want to commend both gentlemen for offering this 
amendment, and also Congresswoman Brownley for being down on the floor 
on the same subject of nondefense cleanup.
  As I can't speak for the chairman, I think that we share a concern 
for cleaning up these sites. I think one of the problems with the 
amendment is the offsets from departmental administration and the 
office of the administrator. I think you're calling attention to a very 
important unaddressed issue in our country. From coast to coast, we 
have these sites that need to be cleaned up. I think the problem with 
this amendment is where the money is being taken from, from our 
standpoint, departmental administration. There have been other nicks to 
that diminishing account as we've gone through the bill today, and I 
truly have heard the concerns expressed by the gentleman from New York 
that we are not adequately investing in cleaning up contaminated sites 
not just in New York, but in California and Ohio and other places 
around our country.
  Without question, the chairman was given an inadequate allocation, 
and the choices he made on levels of funding were for the most part 
very thoughtful. I think it's fair to say that overall this bill is 
truly inadequate in meeting the needs of the Nation. We talked about 
that earlier today. And these accounts are among those that are 
terribly underfunded.
  We keep picking off the bones of this spine, and there aren't 
sufficient funds to go around. So I'm very torn on the gentleman's 
amendment, and I am quite concerned about cleaning up these sites. If 
we could find other offsets, I would probably be very favorably 
inclined; but I am very concerned about where the Members have 
identified funding, and I am very constrained to support it because of 
that.
  But I do want to thank the gentlemen for offering their amendment, 
and hopefully we can find a better solution working together in the 
weeks ahead.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would advise the Member that we have not 
read to that point yet.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions, and other activities of title II of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954, and title X, subtitle A, of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992, $545,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 
     to remain available until expended.

                                Science

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for science 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 facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or 
     expansion, and purchase of not more than 25 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, including one law enforcement 
     vehicle, one ambulance, and one bus, $4,653,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That $174,862,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2015, for program 
     direction.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       Page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $158,309,900)''.
       Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $158,309,900)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding 
for basic energy science research by cutting 10 percent out of its $1.5 
billion budget. It would apply those funds to the spending reduction 
account.
  Basic energy science is a worthy goal to explore fundamental 
phenomena and create scientific knowledge to keep our technologies and 
ideas on the global, leading edge. However, it is not the Federal 
Government's function to act as a venture capitalist for science theory 
research. I believe that this endeavor is instead best left to our 
world-renowned universities and private institutions.
  My amendment does not stop this research. It would simply put it on 
balance with the reductions that have already been applied in the bill 
to our present energy resources.
  In this bill, general science is cut by only 5 percent, while 
research on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is cut by 17 percent and 14 
percent respectively.
  We're in an economic emergency, Mr. Chairman. Our Nation is facing an 
economic meltdown, and Federal dollars are very scarce. As we face this 
huge budget deficit together, we've got to look at every option 
available to meet the challenges of doing more with less.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  His amendment would cut $158 million from the Office of Science 
within the Department of Energy in favor of deficit savings. I should 
say for the record we cut approximately $220 million from last year's 
number. So we've substantially reduced this account.
  Let me just say, too, that the basic science program within the 
Department conducts research with a staggering potential for benefits 
for our Nation. Cutting the program further,

[[Page 11104]]

which is what he seeks, threatens our long-term energy security, hurts 
American scientists and industry, and I think to some extent blemishes 
our credibility as a worldwide leader in basic science programs.
  I therefore oppose this amendment, urge others 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I will say he has been very consistent today. But if we get off the 
subject of this bill just for a second and we think about every single 
chamber of commerce that talks to us, every single economic growth team 
that exists around this country, what do they tell us? They tell us we 
need to invest in STEM--science, technology, engineering, and math--
because America is falling behind.
  In fact, in the immigration debate, what are they asking us for? 
They're asking us for more visas to bring in people from other 
countries who have all the requisite skills that we don't have, where 
we can't provide enough scientists, enough engineers, enough 
specialists to the marketplace for the companies that want to surge 
ahead.
  So for the gentleman to be suggesting that we reduce our science 
accounts even more flies in the face of reality. The science account is 
$223 million below this year's level and $500 million below the budget 
request. Innovation is an area where we as a Nation should be leading, 
and reducing investment in basic science risks world leadership. We are 
already at the edge.
  Investment from publicly funded research yields a 20 percent to 67 
percent return. With that kind of return, we should be investing more 
in science so that we produce the requisite talent that we need to meet 
the needs of the future, not the past. We can't ride on past laurels. 
We have to be producing the new knowledge, new innovation that can 
produce answers for us, certainly in the fields of energy where America 
is truly in deep deficit and having to import so many of the resources 
that propel this economy forward.
  I can't imagine why the gentleman is proposing this. But in the areas 
of science, engineering, math, and technology, we have to measure up. 
If you look at a nation like China, with billions of people producing 
all those engineers, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to 
understand that we better open our eyes to what we need to do here at 
home. All you have to do is look at our negative energy accounts to 
understand that we're falling behind and that these investments in 
science are for the sake of the Nation and the future.
  Daniel Webster's quote up there on the wall tells us to develop the 
resources of our land and calls us forth to do something really great 
in our time and generation. To not invest in science, to not invest in 
the future really takes America backwards.
  So I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, would urge my 
colleagues to do so, 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 amendment was rejected.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS 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 26, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $223,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $223,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my anxiousness is probably 
perpetuated by the 6 hours that I've sat here waiting to offer this 
amendment.
  That said, over the Fourth of July holiday, when persons working with 
me sent me the summary of the Rules Committee and I read that we were 
taking $233 million out of science, I most immediately contacted people 
working with me and asked if they would prepare an amendment that may 
very well cause some of the membership to feel a remedy.
  Let me say most immediately, Mr. Chairman, that Chairman 
Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Kaptur, I have newfound appreciation 
not just for them, but for all appropriators in working within the 
framework that they have been given. And certainly my amendment does 
not address either of them or their respective staffs who are deserving 
of extraordinary commendations on both sides for having done the best 
you can with what you have. I appreciate that.
  Today, I offer a modest amendment that makes a profound statement 
about our country's priorities.
  Federally supported basic research at the Department of Energy has 
helped to lead the development of lithium ion batteries, digital 
recording technology, communications satellites, and water-purification 
techniques, among other vital and incredible advances. I might add, 
some of this work would not be done by the private sector. It may come 
as a surprise to some to know that some of the research that led to 
Google came out of the National Science Foundation.
  Many of my Republican colleagues' insistence on cutting everything 
except defense spending ignores the realities of our modern world. 
China, South Korea, and Australia are but three examples that are 
increasing their percentage of their GDP that's spent on research.
  If we continue to cut, cut, cut, pretty soon we're going to cut 
ourselves right out of the equation in innovation and technology. Yet 
this bill provides $223 million, 5 percent less than the fiscal year 
2013 enacted levels, and $500 million, 10 percent less than the 
administration's request for basic scientific research.
  The amendment that I'm offering restores basic science research to 
the enacted levels, and it offsets this change with funds from the $7.7 
billion appropriated for nuclear weapons, which is an increase of $98 
million, 1 percent over the enacted level. The Congressional Budget 
Office says that this amendment has zero impact on budget authority and 
actually reduces 2014 outlays by $22 million.
  Bombs will not end our dependence on foreign fossil fuel. Bombs don't 
stop trains and underground pipelines from exploding around this 
country. Bombs don't prevent oil from washing up on our beaches. And 
bombs certainly won't put food on the tables of working poor Americans.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. Chairman, our country has real needs. Adequately funding basic 
research is one of them. Basic research will help to ensure that our 
country continues to be a world leader in research and development, 
keeping jobs where they belong, here in America.
  We can no longer afford to spend money on weapons programs that were 
conceived in the Cold War era. We don't need more bombs. We need to 
fund programs that will help move this Nation forward and spur economic 
growth. Congress can and should do better.
  I want to cite one specific in particular. The B61 life extension 
program is a perfect example of misplaced Republican priorities. The 
B61 is the oldest bomb in our nuclear arsenal--almost as old as I am. 
The committee recommended $561 million, $23.7 million above the budget 
request for the B61 program.
  The Senate version assumes a cheaper adjustment, the ``triple alt,'' 
than this bill. That still extends the program for 10 years. That 
assumption alone would save $191 million and almost restore research 
funding to the enacted levels by itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to yield my time because I waited so 
long, but I will yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but

[[Page 11105]]

let me salute the gentleman from Florida for his patience--I know he 
has been in the Chamber at least 5 or 6 hours waiting for his mark in 
this bill so he could get up--and also for the kind words, but most 
especially those directed towards our staff, which, as you know, have 
been dealing with an open rule, which is part of our process here, and 
juggling quite a few amendments which continue to come over the transom 
and will be coming over the transom all night. Indeed, I wanted to 
thank you for that recognition.
  I do oppose the amendment because it would increase funding for the 
Office of Science, not because I don't support the Office of Science, 
but it would hit our National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons 
activity account. I do support the basic science programs championed by 
our colleague. We worked hard in our committee to prioritize basic 
science. As I said earlier, this bill actually increases the Office of 
Science's budget by $32 million above the current post-sequester level, 
but we still make national defense the first priority in our bill, and 
so I oppose this amendment and urge others 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, first of all, I want to thank Congressman 
Hastings for working with us and obviously participating in these 
debates for the entire day today. He is such an able and well-
intentioned Member. His brilliance continues to inspire all of us on 
many issues, including this one.
  I wanted to just say that I agree with the gentleman's intent in 
offering this amendment. And as I've said many times today, the 
allocation we were given as a subcommittee is simply insufficient to 
meet all of the needs that the Nation has certainly in this area of 
science.
  The gentleman is correct that there is a $223 million--which is not 
insignificant--reduction from 2013 levels. So as we look to the future, 
there is less emphasis on science. I agree with the gentleman's intent. 
I wish we could restore all those dollars this evening.
  I would also say that there's a constraint on us because we know that 
the President very much wants to engage in nuclear weapons reduction 
talks with other nations around the world, and I think it is important 
that he be able to negotiate from a position of strength. That is one 
of the reasons that the chairman and I are working so very hard to 
allow him to achieve the ultimate objective of nuclear arms reduction. 
So to take dollars from those accounts at this level really does create 
a bit of a pressure for us that would cause me to oppose the 
gentleman's amendment at this time. But I do so very reluctantly and 
with full understanding of what he is trying to achieve, and I want to 
thank him very much for waiting the entire day to offer this very, very 
important amendment that I hope some day to be able to support.
  I urge my colleagues to consider however they may wish to vote on 
this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 Florida will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

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

       Page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to present an amendment that 
addresses an imbalance in our efforts to promote the long-term economic 
and national security interests of the United States.
  This amendment reverses the deep and harmful cuts to the Department 
of Energy's Office of Science and balances this by a corresponding 
reduction--amounting to 6 percent--in the nuclear weapons production 
and life extension accounts.
  The greatest long-term threat that our country faces on both the 
military and economic fronts is the threat of losing our role as world 
leaders in innovation in science and technology. Nothing is more 
crucial to preserving that role than the fundamental and applied 
scientific research, at both universities and national laboratories, 
supported by the DOE Office of Science. This appropriations bill would 
cut funding for the Office of Science by $500 million below the 
President's request for the next fiscal year.
  As a physicist who worked at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 
for over 20 years and collaborated with universities and other national 
labs all over the United States, I understand the productivity and the 
potential of the Department of Energy's national lab system and the 
wide range of basic scientific research that they support.
  The Office of Science is responsible for supporting university-based 
research, but it also supports basic research facilities that are too 
big for any single company or university to develop.
  The Chicago area that I represent is home to a number of scientific 
centers, including Fermilab, Argonne National Laboratory, and 
university-based centers. The economic impact of Argonne and Fermilab 
in Illinois alone is estimated to be more than $1.3 billion annually, 
and there are thousands of good-paying jobs that are supported by those 
investments.
  Our national labs are a critical research tool to academics and 
industry alike. For example, Eli Lilly conducts nearly half of its drug 
discovery research in conjunction with the Advanced Photon Source at 
Argonne.
  The Office of Science is also home to one of the Department's newest 
ventures, the innovation hubs, which seek to discover and develop the 
next generation of energy delivery. Programs like the Joint Center for 
Energy Storage Research, headquartered at Argonne, and the Fuels from 
Sunlight Hub, headquartered at the California Institute of Technology, 
bring together multiple teams of researchers who are working to develop 
energy advancements that have the potential to transform our energy 
systems.
  The Office of Science also invests in fusion, a safe, clean, and 
sustainable energy source that has the scientific potential to provide 
the United States with energy independence and a nearly limitless zero-
emissions energy supply.
  Currently, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is building the 
most powerful fusion facility of its type in the world. Through the 
Office of Science's Biological and Environmental Research programs, we 
have become world leaders in biofuels research. This research is laying 
the foundation for a revolution in biofuel production that will help to 
lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
  Study after study has shown that there are few investments that 
government can make that provide as high a return on investment as 
scientific research and development. The cuts proposed by Republicans 
in this underlying bill will have a wide-ranging impact, both to the 
local economy in Illinois and to our national economy. And with wages 
as a percentage of our economy at a record low, it is not time to 
retreat and to stop investing in American innovation. We need to 
maintain a competitive advantage now more than ever.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today because we must continue to invest in 
American innovation and to fully fund the research and development 
conducted through the DOE Office of Science.
  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.

[[Page 11106]]


  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but 
I do salute the gentleman for his work at the Fermilab, one of the 
finest labs in the Nation. Obviously, we appreciate his knowledge, and 
I would salute his contributions to science during his career before he 
came here.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I oppose his amendment. A cut of this 
magnitude to the weapons activities would seriously endanger our 
ability to carry out the modernization work that I talked about 
earlier, and so I oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. I would actually like to respond a little bit about the 
offset for this amendment. This amendment is offset by reducing the 
$7.7 billion budget for the NNSA nuclear weapons account by $500 
million. This is a 6.5 percent reduction.
  I want to make it clear that the intent of this amendment is not to 
reduce the large amount of high-quality research that goes on in NNSA-
supported programs; but a large fraction of the funding in this account 
goes to production and future production facilities for weapons systems 
that serve no clearly defined strategic purpose in today's geopolitics, 
or they go to programs for which the cost estimates, the project 
management, or both have come under repeated criticism when they come 
under external independent review.
  To take two examples, the underlying bill funds the B61 life 
extension program at $23 million more than requested. This program has 
ballooned in cost, from $4 billion 2 years ago to over $10 billion. A 
recent independent cost estimate commissioned by the Pentagon called 
even this estimate into question.
  Another example is the overall size of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 
We have, today, more than 5,000 nuclear weapons. Even if the United 
States and Russia were to cut our arsenals by a factor of 10, our 
countries would still have significantly more nuclear weapons than our 
nearest competitors. The reason you spend money on nuclear deterrence 
is to deter rational actors and to reassure our allies.
  To those who oppose this 6 percent cut, I would ask: Is there any 
example of a rational actor who would not be adequately deterred by a 
stockpile of, for example, 1,000 deployed and deployable nuclear 
weapons? Is there any one of our allies who would not consider our 
ability to release, say, 10 percent of that arsenal in retaliation to 
an attack on them to be a sufficient ability to respond? Yet we are 
redesigning production facilities and spending money on them when the 
strategic quantities required to be produced have not been established.
  Earlier this year, the GAO added that NNSA was:

     again included on GAO's high-risk list in recognition of the 
     potential for vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and 
     mismanagement in contract administration and management of 
     major projects.

  And the cost remains uncertain. From the text of this very Energy and 
Water Committee report accompanying this bill:

       The committee notes that the full extent of the 
     consequences of the NNSA's project management problems, 
     especially at the largest of the NNSA's construction 
     projects, is still coming to light. As the administration 
     gains a more complete understanding of cost increases and 
     construction delays, it must take the lead to determine 
     whether a new long-term budget plan is needed to meet the 
     Nation's strategic objectives.

  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), and I rise belatedly to support 
the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as well.
  Let me speak from the layman's perspective, although I served for a 
number of years on the Science Committee and presently serve on 
Homeland Security, which many of us know that when we deal with the 
issues of national security, we're dealing with technology, we're 
dealing with science. In essence, we secure this Nation by being 
victors of science.
  Let me use layman's terms. Let me use what children are studying in 
their classrooms, maybe Alexander Bell, maybe they're studying Albert 
Einstein, but maybe they are studying and admire the Nation's 
astronauts.
  For a number of years, I served, as I said, on the Science Committee 
and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and I could see how 
science permeated not only what we do here on Earth, but obviously 
space science. It seems to me, although I appreciate the heavy lifting 
of the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee on making 
determinations and going forward, what is America if we cannot invest 
in science?

                              {time}  2100

  Science is the job creator of the 21st century and the centuries 
beyond. Science provides jobs by creating new technology, new 
discoveries, and I, frankly, believe that it is suffering--that we have 
to subject America to the drastic cuts in science, the drastic cuts 
that will result in less research in labs, less private research, less 
teaching on science, and less growth and expansion on scientific 
inventions and obviously productivity.
  So I would hope that, as the gentleman from Illinois has explained, 
it is a minute aspect of the funding source, and that we could balance 
our weaponry needs with the idea of advancing science. That's what I 
see these amendments as doing, both Mr. Hastings' and Mr. Foster's, 
attempting to not allow America to take a back seat or a second-class 
position on research and science.
  It is clear that our best days are in front of us, and that America 
has grown and advanced because we have allowed the genius of science to 
be able to promote, not only our democracy, but our creativity and the 
curers of diseases, and also the finding of technology and the creation 
of invention that have made the quality of life better. That's what 
science is; it is human, it is humanity.
  And so I would ask my colleagues to consider the amendment.
  I rise to support science. I think it is valuable, I think it is 
important. And I think this is a difficult challenge for our committee, 
for this committee, but I do think that, as we proceed, we need to find 
a way to increase the funding for science, for us to be able to go 
forward in the greatness of this Nation in many, many ways.
  But science has been a way that America has proven her greatness 
because we've allowed those with talent and opportunity to be able to 
share that talent in advancing the quality of life, not only for 
Americans, but humankind.
  I'd ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities 
     authorized by section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act (42 
     U.S.C. 16538), $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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


[[Page 11107]]

       Page 26, line 18, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $329,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $329,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment together with Mr. 
Polis. We've heard discussion repeatedly about the value of science. 
But if we back up a few moments, we also need to understand our values 
as Representatives of this Nation.
  There's been an interesting subset of debates here over the last 
several hours and, on the one hand, it's the issue of, we must maintain 
our nuclear weapon superiority, and the committee has taken up that 
value, that goal, and has put a lot of money into that area while 
moving money out of the science.
  Unfortunately, the committee couldn't take a larger view of the 
overall budget and the appropriations and deal with, perhaps, the fact 
that we're spending $82 billion in Afghanistan this year and maybe move 
some of that money over into these accounts. But that wasn't possible.
  But if you stand back and take a look at what has happened throughout 
the course of this day, you'll see that there have been repeated 
efforts on the part of the Democrats to rebuild the science, the 
research budget of the United States.
  This appropriation bill simply decimates that budget, that critical 
investment in today and tomorrow, and in the economy of the future. Our 
ability to deal with climate change, our ability to deal with energy, 
are just stripped, gutted and actually set aside as a result of this 
appropriation bill.
  The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a $2 billion 
reduction, 73 percent, ARPA-E, the subject of this amendment, a $329 
million reduction, an 87 percent reduction. The Office of Science, 
25,000 researchers across this Nation are likely to be laid off, 
thousands of research projects will simply not be funded. They will 
simply die on the vine.
  The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, an $80 
million reduction. It goes on and on.
  This is so backward, this is so backward. What this Nation needs to 
do is to build its research capabilities, build its science. We do not 
need to build more bombs. But yet, that's what we are doing here.
  This amendment replaces the $329 million dollar cut to the ARPA-E 
program, a program that has actually created many new opportunities, 
which my colleagues will be discussing here in the next few moments, 
but a program based upon the Defense Department's DARPA program, that 
has, through arguments that we've heard over the last several hours, 
developed extraordinary technology that has now found its way into the 
world's economy, for example, the Internet.
  We really must restore this money, and we must restore the science 
budget and research budget for the Department of Energy. We can't fail. 
If it's a choice between building more nuclear weapons and replacing 
our nuclear weapons or creating tomorrow's economy, it's a simple 
choice.
  But this bill doesn't do that. It deals with yesterday. Yes, we're 
going to need nuclear weapons, but not 5,500 of them. We don't need to 
rebuild all of them. We don't need to spend $7.7 billion on that 
enterprise while gutting the research and the science future of this 
Nation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, you know, the funding priorities of this 
bill are simply upside down. This bill prioritizes nuclear weapons 
funding over research for innovative technologies that will lead to 
energy independence and launch a future for sustainable energy and job 
growth in our country.
  This bill before us underfunds programs that not only will grow our 
Nation's clean energy sources but also will promote jobs and emerging 
technologies and maintain critical infrastructure. At the same time it 
makes the cut in the ARPA-E program that you've heard so much about 
here today, the bill increases weapons activities by $97.7 million 
above the 2013 enacted level.
  As I mentioned earlier in my Rules Committee discussion time, this 
past February I had the privilege of meeting with an ARPA-E project 
team from my district in Colorado, a joint project between the 
University of Colorado at Boulder and the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory, which demonstrated significant energy yield improvements 
and cost reduction potential in solar photovoltaic power systems.
  The team leaders were very excited about the challenges in clean 
energy, and there are examples of projects like this which ARPA-E has 
helped fund, and would not even exist without ARPA-E, across our 
country that are leading and will lead to countless benefits for 
consumers and for our national energy security.
  But despite the success of ARPA-E, which was even acknowledged by the 
subcommittee chair and ranking committee member before our Rules 
Committee yesterday, the underlying bill disproportionately cuts from 
clean energy programs, 81 percent cuts, while bolstering wasteful 
spending for weapons.
  We need to restore the ARPA-E funding to the President's budget 
levels. That's why Mr. Garamendi and I are offering this amendment to 
provide $329 million in funding to ARPA-E. This amendment is offset 
with a corresponding cut to the NNSA Weapons Activities account.
  This amendment provides an amount of support that ARPA-E needs to 
ensure that our country keeps moving towards energy independence and 
can sustain job growth.
  I strongly encourage my colleague on both sides of the aisle to 
support the Garamendi-Polis amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. This 
amendment would unacceptably strike funding for NNSA's weapons 
activities by $325 million in order to increase funding for ARPA-E at 
the Department of Energy.
  I am supportive of ARPA-E, but a reduction of this magnitude in the 
National Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Activities account 
would seriously affect their ability to ensure the continued 
reliability of our weapons.
  These weapons have to be certified by the Secretary of Energy to the 
President, our Commander-in-Chief. The Secretary's ability to do that 
would be hurt by cuts of this magnitude.
  And for this, and other reasons, 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 California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. 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. Schiff

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

       Page 26, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment, along with my 
colleague, Representative Woodall of Georgia, and my colleague, 
Representative Polis of Colorado. It would increase funding for the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, otherwise known as ARPA-E.

[[Page 11108]]

  The bill provides only $50 million for ARPA-E, a reduction of $215 
million, or 81 percent, from fiscal year 2013. Moreover, the bill would 
reduce ARPA-E by 87 percent compared to the 2014 budget request.
  This amendment would increase the funding by $20 million, with the 
increase offset by a reduction in the Department Administration 
account. This is a very modest investment for an agency whose work has 
the potential to remake our economy.
  While the amendment would leave us a long way short of where the 
funding for this program should be, as well as where it is in the 
Senate bill and in the President's budget, passing it would send a 
strong signal that there's bipartisan support for this kind of 
research.
  In 2011, I offered a similar amendment to restore funding to ARPA-E, 
which was adopted by a bipartisan majority in the House.
  Started in 2009, ARPA-E is a revolutionary program that advances 
high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early for 
private sector investment. This is an innovative agency modeled on 
DARPA, which has spearheaded incredible breakthroughs in the Defense 
Department, with both military and civilian applications.
  ARPA-E was created to bring that same kind of innovative thinking to 
the energy sector. That includes a focus on high-risk, high-reward R&D 
and a quick-moving culture made up of experts who stay for just a few 
years to ensure that new ideas are continually being brought forward. 
Its philosophy, much like a tech startup, is to hire the best technical 
staff and then hire the managers and leadership that can get the most 
out of them.
  As the committee report notes, ARPA-E works on ``developing energy 
technologies whose development and commercialization are too risky to 
attract significant private sector investment but are capable of 
significantly changing the energy sector to address our critical 
economic and energy security challenges.''
  That's a great description of ARPA-E, and I'd ask the House to 
consider whether it sounds like something we should be cutting by 81 
percent.
  Mr. Chair, there are cuts I can support in this bill, but a cut to 
our investment in new generations of energy technology is shortsighted 
in the extreme.
  As we cut spending to return the budget to balance, we must not cut 
those programs that are vital to our economic future and our national 
security. ARPA-E is just such an agency. Even if we cannot make the 
investment the President called for in his budget, let's at least not 
destroy an agency that is pointing the way toward a more energy-secure 
future.
  Cutting programs like ARPA-E so severely is akin to shutting them 
down completely. No agency can absorb an 81 percent cut to its budget 
in a single year, but even less so an agency that relies on attracting 
elite scientists and engineers.
  Energy is a national security issue, it's an economic imperative, 
it's a health issue, and it's an environmental issue. And to invest in 
the kind of cutting-edge research that's going on at ARPA-E is exactly 
the direction we need to go.
  We want to lead the energy revolution. We don't want to see that 
leadership go to China, India or any other nation. But if we're serious 
about it, we need to invest in cutting edge research, and that means 
ARPA-E.
  Our competitiveness in a global economy where we have to compete with 
labor that costs a fraction of what American workers costs depends on 
research and development.

                              {time}  2115

  I can't understand why we'd want to give away that big advantage. So 
I urge support for this amendment to support cutting-edge investments 
in our energy future, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. I know my colleague from Georgia will be speaking on this 
shortly. I appreciate him and Representative Schiff working on this 
amendment, and I will be very brief to voice my support for Congressman 
Woodall and Congressman Schiff in their efforts to restore some of the 
funds in ARPA-E.
  As we discussed, the underlying bill cuts ARPA-E by 81 percent. We 
live in times of fiscal austerity. We have the sequestration. We know 
it's time for cuts. Eighty-one percent is clearly singling it out.
  What this amendment does is restores $20 million in funding to ARPA-
E. Even $20 million goes a long way when we're talking about ARPA-E. 
We're talking about early-stage investments. It could be $500,000, $1 
million, $2 million--very high leverage, very high return. And $70 
million is not enough to fund the program. But, yes, it will make great 
strides even at this funding level, because investment in early-stage 
companies is all about risk-taking. That's why the government has a 
critical role in promoting innovation and making sure that we do the 
basic research to even get it ready for tech transfer, to get it ready 
for venture capital, to get it ready for the private sector to 
commercialize it. In order for ARPA-E to be successful, investors need 
to see that the government is willing to invest in risky, but high-
reward, projects that can truly alter the course of energy independence 
for our country.
  So I strongly salute Representatives Woodall and Schiff for bringing 
forward this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this as a 
step forward, and I deeply appreciate everybody on both sides of the 
aisle who said great things about the ARPA-E project and how it can 
help lead to energy independence.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. I also want to thank the gentleman from California and 
the gentleman from Colorado for their enthusiasm about this important 
project. The amendment that my colleague from California is bringing 
forward is modest in scope. I'll say to my colleagues who want to see 
spending reduced, we're talking about the difference between an 81 
percent cut, as is in the chairman's mark today, to a 74 percent cut, 
if we add this $20 million back in. It's a modest number, but it's an 
important number because the committee could only do what the committee 
could do. And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman. I 
know he is committed to this research.
  I hate to hear folks describe the commitment to advancement, Mr. 
Chairman, the commitment to next-generation technologies as a 
Republican or a Democrat commitment. I think it's an American 
commitment. It's certainly a House commitment, and it's one that the 
chairman and the ranking member tried their best within their 
allocations to satisfy.
  What are you going to take the money away from, Mr. Chairman? Look at 
what we're dealing with in this appropriations bill. We're talking 
about nuclear security. We're talking about environmental cleanup. 
We're talking about uranium enrichment, decontamination, and 
decommissioning. The choices we have here are tough choices. And the 
amendment that's before us now, knowing that we want to put the money 
where it's going to do the most good, says let's take the money out of 
administration. That's not to say that there doesn't have to be 
administration. That's not to say phones don't have to be answered and 
electricity doesn't have to be turned on. But when you have to make 
tough choices, the one that the gentleman from California is asking us 
to make today is: Are we going to invest in the bureaucracy or are we 
going to invest in that opportunity to make tomorrow so much more 
different than today?
  If my colleagues haven't had a chance, look at those project teams 
like the one my colleague from Colorado mentioned and what they are 
researching. Mr. Chairman, I come from coal-burning country. And the 
work

[[Page 11109]]

that ARPA-E is doing on carbon sequestration could change the debate 
about American energy independence forever.
  ARPA-E isn't working on what is going to happen tomorrow. They're 
working on what's going to happen in the next generation; what is it 
going to be that changes the debate forever. Those are the kinds of 
ideas that this $21 million will support.
  Mr. Chairman, it's the commitment to fundamental research, the 
commitment to game-changing ideas that is a bipartisan commitment. It's 
one that goes from coast-to-coast, from north to south, and on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Again, I'm grateful to the gentlelady from Ohio and the chairman from 
New Jersey for all they have done to try to support these accounts. It 
is my great hope that my colleagues here in the House will support the 
gentleman from California's amendment and we'll get this $20 million 
plus-up.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McNERNEY. I rise in support of the Schiff amendment, which makes 
sure that we continue investing in quality energy research programs 
that will benefit the United States.
  Energy innovation, research and development are essential for our 
country, especially if we truly want to move forward with reducing our 
energy dependence on fossil fuels. One important component of this goal 
is the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. Since 2009, 
ARPA-E has funded over 275 potentially transformational energy 
technology projects. Many of the research projects are occurring in my 
own State of California.
  These companies, national labs, and educational institutions are 
working on items that will greatly benefit the energy security of our 
country. Some projects include Distributed Power Flow Control Using 
Smart Wires for Energy Routing; Low-Cost Biological Catalyst to Enable 
Efficient CO2 Capture; Large-Scale Energy Reductions Through 
Sensors, Feedback, and Information Technology; Highly Dispatchable and 
Distributed Demand Response for the Integration of Distributed 
Generation; and Carbon Nanotube Membranes for Energy-Efficient Carbon 
Sequestration.
  Our Nation faces significant energy challenges in the years ahead, 
both from a production and reliability standpoint, but also from the 
effects of climate change. Climate change's effects include severe 
storms, sea level rise, and the extremely poor air quality that 
continually plagues California's Central Valley. We must become more 
energy efficient, reduce the release of CO2 and other 
harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and improve our electric 
grid and its ability to meet peak demands. ARPA-E projects aim to solve 
these problems and at the same time will help reduce blackouts, reduce 
energy costs, and improve both environmental and public health.
  ARPA-E initiatives help facilitate future private investments by 
helping companies reach their potential in the early stages. In fact, 
the American Energy Innovation Council, which consists of some of 
America's largest companies, like Lockheed Martin and Microsoft, has 
called for ARPA-E to be funded at 10 times the proposed level. 
Unfortunately, the bill today provides only $50 million for ARPA-E, 
which is $215 million less than what was enacted the last fiscal year 
and $329 million less than the President's request.
  ARPA-E project successes have attracted more than $450 million in 
private investments. It's this return on investment that must be 
continued, not cut back. The Schiff amendment aims to correct this 
error in the underlying bill.
  The only reason I can think of to reduce ARPA-E funding is to help 
prop up fossil fuel industries, and that's going to get us more global 
warming and cause us more problems. We need to reduce global warming. 
Global warming is a threat to our national security. We need to fight 
it. ARPA-E is going to give us the tools to do that.
  So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

       Such sums as are derived from amounts received from 
     borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b)(1)(B) of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 under this heading in prior Acts, shall be 
     collected in accordance with section 502(7) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided, That, for 
     necessary administrative expenses to carry out this Loan 
     Guarantee program, $22,000,000 is appropriated, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2015: Provided further, That 
     $22,000,000 of the fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512(h)) shall 
     be credited as offsetting collections to this account to 
     cover administrative expenses and shall remain available 
     until expended, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2014 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $0: Provided further, That fees collected under section 
     1702(h) in excess of the amount appropriated for 
     administrative expenses shall not be available until 
     appropriated: Provided further, That the Department of Energy 
     shall not subordinate any loan obligation to other financing 
     in violation of section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
     (42 U.S.C. 16512) or subordinate any Guaranteed Obligation to 
     any loan or other debt obligations in violation of section 
     609.10 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.

        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

       For administrative expenses in carrying out the Advanced 
     Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $6,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2015.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       Page 28, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     to $0)''.
       Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates the 
remaining funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing 
Loan program, transferring $6 million to the Spending Reduction 
Account. Since 2008, the U.S. Government has been in the business of 
lending money to build cars that no one wants to buy. For instance, $50 
million went to the Vehicle Production Group for natural gas minivans. 
That company failed. Meanwhile, $190 million went to Fisker Automotive 
to make electric cars that catch on fire. For instance, the Karma, 
Fisker's hybrid-electric luxury sedan, which cost around $100,000 
apiece, was recalled to fix a hose connection that allowed coolant 
leaks into the battery chamber, causing an electrical short. 
Fortunately, no one was hurt before production was ended. 
Unfortunately, taxpayers got back only a fraction of the payout.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry 
producing more fuel-efficient automobiles. However, there's simply no 
good reason that the Federal Government should be subsidizing billion-
dollar companies at a time when our Nation is broke. It is time that we 
begin to reverse this disturbing trend of energy loan programs for 
companies and let the automobile industry succeed or fail in the 
marketplace on its own merits. We have to stop these kinds of 
subsidies, particularly in these hard times when our Nation is in an 
economic emergency.
  I urge support of this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. 
While I appreciate the gentleman's position on the Advanced Technology 
Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program--and certainly some of his 
knowledge of the program is entirely accurate--the

[[Page 11110]]

elimination of this funding would hurt Federal oversight of the more 
than $8 billion in loans already given. As our committee report states, 
there are no new applications for this program, and the Department of 
Energy doesn't expect any. The committee recommendation includes the $6 
million as a reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to 
the existing loan portfolio, and no more.
  So I must oppose the gentleman's amendment in order to ensure proper 
oversight of taxpayers' funding that's already out there in the form of 
loans, 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Departmental Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and official reception and representation expenses 
     not to exceed $30,000, $187,863,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2015, plus such additional amounts as 
     necessary to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost 
     of work for others notwithstanding the provisions of the 
     Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That 
     such increases in cost of work are offset by revenue 
     increases of the same or greater amount: Provided further, 
     That moneys received by the Department for miscellaneous 
     revenues estimated to total $108,188,000 in fiscal year 2014 
     may be retained and used for operating expenses within this 
     account, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $79,675,000.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,200,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  2130

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to add my appreciation to 
the committee's work. It's tough work. It's important work because this 
is how we serve the American people.
  I ask my colleagues to discuss with me--or follow my discussion on 
the importance of the amendment that I offer because it is an amendment 
that takes its funding from a source of funding that has been discussed 
previously, and that is the Atomic Energy Defense Activities, National 
Nuclear Security Administration. But it does take these moneys and it 
uses them in a very constructive manner. It is moneys to maintain for 
environmental justice that go to Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, minority-serving institutions, tribal colleges, and other 
organizations. This is imperative in preserving sustainability and 
growth of a community and environment.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the intent, the simple intent, that alongside 
of the important work of this appropriation of the Energy and Water 
there is a constant need to be assured that our communities are 
protected. Let me cite just a few examples as we proceed.
  Many of us understand the recent tragedy that occurred--not in this 
country, but recently occurred in Canada where areas were wiped out. 
This is an important highlight for what environmental justice is all 
about.
  Many of us have heard in the years past of the Buffalo Creek 
disaster. This is what environmental justice does; it is to fund 
programs that are vital to ensuring that minority groups are not placed 
at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued 
preservation of their homes.
  But it goes further. It is underserved areas. It is as much important 
to preserve areas in Appalachia, in the Delta, in places where poor 
communities cannot, if you will, represent themselves. Through 
education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can 
promote a broader understanding of science and our citizens can improve 
their surroundings.
  What better group than Historically Black Colleges, minority-serving 
institutions that include Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal 
colleges; why are they the best to move in that direction? Primarily 
because they communicate with those underserved communities.
  Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase 
youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy, 
weatherization cleanup, and asset revitalization. These improvements 
will provide protection to our most vulnerable groups.
  Many people believe environmental justice has to do with lawsuits. It 
has to do with outreach and information. This is simply a small program 
that allows the Department of Energy to focus on this constituency and 
ensure the coverage and the protection.
  This program provides better access to technology for underserved 
communities. Together, the Department of Energy and Department of 
Agriculture distributed access to information which generates a 
recognition of protecting the environment. Community leaders are able 
as well to participate in environmental justice.
  In our communities, in urban areas, there's a need for environmental 
justice. Again, what better institutions than those institutions that 
draw their population from the communities, that draw their population 
from the reservations or from the communities that our Native Americans 
are engaged in?
  So I ask my colleagues to look at this program, look at the, if you 
will, fiscal responsibility that I've utilized in drawing from the 
program to invest in environmental justice. It's a fair way to give 
resources to these vital institutions that, to be frank with you, Mr. 
Chairman, they don't have the resources, but they do good work.
  Texas Southern University had an environmental justice clinic located 
in Houston in the 18th Congressional District. But let me be very 
clear, this is not an earmark. These are resources that can be used by 
the Department of Energy that will respond to this broad depth of 
universities, Historically Black Colleges, tribal institutions, 
minority-serving--which include, of course, the Hispanic-serving 
institutions.
  Let me quickly say that since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has 
also funded 175 energy projects. But again, this is limited to 
environmental justice. I believe this is an effective utilization of 
these funds and would ask my colleagues to ensure that we have the 
funds to ensure the good work of these particular entities.
  Let me conclude by asking my colleagues to support the education of 
our young people in the environmental protection area that enhances the 
communities from which they have come, making America better. I ask my 
colleagues to support the Jackson Lee 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. I must oppose the gentlelady's amendment. This is, 
though, a very important program, and I support it, our committee 
supports it. But this program is primarily funded within the Office of 
Legacy Management. That office receives substantive funding in this 
bill under the account for other defense activities.
  Funding for the Legacy Management increases $3.4 million over fiscal 
year 2013. The Office of Legacy Management is the correct office to 
provide stewardship for the legacy sites. They are the experts. And I 
am happy to help ensure

[[Page 11111]]

that this very important program receives support within available 
funding for Legacy Management.
  I look forward to working with Ms. Jackson Lee to support this 
program as we move on through the appropriations process, but I oppose 
the amendment and 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 would like to yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank my good friend 
from New Jersey. But I do want to cite that nearly 10 years ago, 
President Clinton produced Executive Order 12898, thereby highlighting 
the importance of not only giving greater attention to our underserved 
communities, but also how we can help our citizens by educating them on 
the areas in which they live. That falls under the particular account 
that I'm utilizing, and I would therefore like to go forward in this 
instance.
  Let me just be very appreciative of my good friend, the chairman of 
this subcommittee, and the ranking member. I am very appreciative of 
how difficult it is under sequester. But what I would say is that these 
entities--Historically Black Colleges, minority-serving and tribal 
colleges--in the course of what we're trying to do, these resources, 
added to what the gentleman has already indicated, the $3.2 million, 
$3.4 million is meager in what they could do with protecting 
communities, educating communities about their environmental needs.
  So that's environmental justice. It is expanding the reach so that 
communities are far more protected than those that we've seen.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for bringing 
this issue before us during this debate.
  You know, when I look at the executives that come and appear before 
our subcommittee from the Department, I would have to say that the 
gentlelady brings a very important concern to our subcommittee.
  I would not say that if I look at those who have come, they are 
completely representative of our country. So I'm not sure that the 
consciousness exists at the highest level for assuring that all 
communities in America are engaged in the activities of the Department.
  I don't know--I heard the chairman, and there is a concern about 
which accounts have been included in the gentlelady's amendment. I 
would hope that, as this legislation moves forward, we could find a way 
to accomplish the gentlelady's objectives in a way that would not raise 
concerns on the other side.
  So I think that she has really brought an important proposal before 
us here, and I would hate to see that it would not be considered simply 
because a wrong account has been identified, for example. So I would 
just like to remain open to the gentlelady's proposal in a manner in 
which it could be considered and ultimately approved.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentlewoman yield for a moment if you still 
have time?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me sort of clarify, because the chairman has 
made a point about a certain area where it is referencing Historically 
Black Colleges. They are referencing several areas. I am speaking 
specifically to environmental justice, which is represented in the 
Departmental Administration account. So I'm focusing on the important 
work that these colleges can do as it relates to educating our poor, 
impoverished communities and communities of which they have a direct 
ability to communicate with.
  I will tell you, bringing forth environmental experts out of these 
jurisdictions--tribal colleges, minority-serving, and Historically 
Black--is a great asset to improving the quality of life of all 
Americans. So I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  So mine is one of the references. There are many references where 
Historically Black Colleges are, but this is specifically dealing with 
environmental justice.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would also say to the gentlelady that in many 
communities that are contaminated around this country and have 
problems, oftentimes they are in neighborhoods and places where people 
who are minority, who are tribal, people who are not necessarily 
represented broadly within the Department live. So I think that we have 
to be conscious in all parts of the Department, that there should be an 
inclusivity.
  So I think that the gentlelady has done a service, as always, by 
raising our consciousness to all of the activities of the Department 
and that they be sensitive to all parts of America, including 
environmental justice. So I would hope that as we move forward, we 
could find a way to support the gentlelady's concerns.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 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:

       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,500,000)''.
       Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $9,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the 
appropriations for the Department of Energy's salaries and expenses by 
$9.5 million and place that amount in the spending reduction account. 
When combined with the reduction included in the underlying bill, this 
amount would represent a 25 percent cut from current levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that this may seem somewhat drastic. 
However, I've spoken again and again today about the fiscal emergency 
facing our country.
  There are legitimate constitutional functions of the Federal 
Government which must be funded, particularly those that relate to our 
national defense. Yet even those functions are facing cuts--deep cuts. 
This means that prioritization is necessary so that we may determine 
our wants versus our needs.
  We need to open up access to new sources of energy. We need to stop 
being dependent on foreign oil. The Department of Energy has done very 
little to further either of these goals. In fact, according to its 
original purpose of being stood up, it has been a dismal failure.
  Certainly, there are advances to be made in current technology. But 
in the here and now, we know that we are sitting on vast resources that 
are so tied up in red tape it could be decades before they could come 
to fruition.
  The House has passed several bills--and will continue to pass bills--
to lighten the Federal burden and bring true energy freedom to this 
country. But the Senate and the administration disagree with us. They 
would rather throw millions upon millions towards new sources of clean 
energy, some of which have turned into highly publicized wastes of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to prioritize developing the resources that we 
have now. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has proven time and 
again it is out of touch with the needs of our country. The bureaucrats 
responsible for putting the Solyndras of the world above traditional 
sources of energy pull in more than $100,000 a year on average, all the 
while doing little to lighten costs for American families. In fact, 
despite a supposed hiring freeze,

[[Page 11112]]

the Department of Energy's Web site, right now today, is currently 
advertising 31 job openings paying over $105,000 per year.

                              {time}  2145

  This is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, and it must stop.
  My amendment would force the Department of Energy to reevaluate its 
priorities and put our current needs first rather than hoping that new, 
clean sources of energy will pan out eventually.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, our bill had many competing 
priorities with a low allocation, and I appreciate my colleague's 
commitment to finding more savings in the bill. He is ever persistent, 
and I salute his willingness to challenge us each year on the floor 
when we do this energy and water bill, and we are not the only bill 
where he makes these challenges.
  However, the Department Administration account in our recommendation 
was already suffering a $49 million cut from last year's level. Earlier 
amendments that we did this afternoon and this evening have taken 
another $60 million. There is not a lot of money left to run the 
department.
  While some may want to close down the department, the department has 
some pretty incredible responsibilities in terms of nuclear safety and 
national defense and things that relate to cleanups and things of this 
nature. If they had to respond--if you will pardon the expression--to 
some of the emergencies that we might have as a Nation, and we know our 
deficit is an emergency situation, they might not be able to respond on 
our behalf.
  Therefore, I 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I kind of think back to the movie ``Titanic''. There is one scene 
where the captain--evidently the captain--comes out on the deck just 
about as the Titanic is going to hit the iceberg. I can remember the 
blank look on his face and thinking what had he been doing before all 
this happened. We saw the tragedy that occurred. Sometimes if you don't 
have captains in the pilot house you can really run aground, you can 
really have trouble.
  Already, the majority this evening has cut--I think we are down to 
$146 million in administration in the Department of Energy, a vast 
department. That kind of level of cut is going to cause big mistakes. 
There will be accounting mistakes, there will be contracts that won't 
be overseen. In a way, you are seeding a very bad future for the 
management of the funds that we do vote for here tonight.
  I think the gentleman, perhaps, isn't really familiar with everything 
the Department does. You can come down here and be kind of cavalier and 
propose amendments, but in the end, we can't absorb these cuts at the 
Department because you're going to have problems that are caused by no 
captains being at the helm.
  I think that's really a big mistake, because this Department has to 
manage over $30 billion--billion dollars--of tax dollars on the energy 
and water front. These are big contracts, they are major projects that 
are undertaken by this Department, and to act otherwise is to really, I 
think, perform naively.
  I think the gentleman has an objective, but I really think that he is 
going to cause great harm to the Republic by this amendment. Obviously, 
I oppose it, urge my colleagues to oppose it, 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 amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, $42,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2015.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one ambulance, $7,675,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley

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

       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $23,700,000)''.
       Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $23,700,000)''.

  Mr. QUIGLEY (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 gentleman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with my 
friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Our amendment is very straightforward. It simply cuts the $23.7 
million from the B61 nuclear bomb not requested by the Department of 
Energy.
  The National Nuclear Security Administration requested a 45 percent 
increase for a gold-plated upgrade plan for the B61 nuclear bomb. The 
committee provided the 45 percent increase in funding for a portion of 
the most expensive $10 billion upgrade plan. Then they provided an 
additional $23.7 million. Our amendment simply cuts these additional 
funds provided beyond what the agency requested.
  Let me back up for a minute and explain what the $560 million in this 
bill is actually going to pay for. At a time when we are slashing funds 
for research at the NIH, failing to fund our crumbling infrastructure, 
and underinvesting in our children's education, we are increasing 
funding to keep hundreds of nuclear bombs in operation that we will 
never use.
  The Cold War is over. Mr. Chairman, I thought today that I was back 
in a ``Twilight Zone'' episode--well, they're all like this--where you 
woke up in the morning and it is 50 years earlier--it's 1963. The Cold 
War is still raging.
  Despite the fact that security experts of all political stripes, 
including conservatives Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, have called 
for deep cuts to our outsized nuclear stockpile.
  General Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, said the ``military utility'' of the B61 is ``practically nil.''
  As the U.S. and Russia work to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and 
shift funds to meet today's threats, the B61 in Europe will be one of 
the first weapons cut. Just last month in Berlin, the President stated 
that he wants to ``seek bold reductions in tactical weapons,'' aka the 
B61, in Europe.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they want to reduce 
the deficit. I agree, but if we are actually going to reduce spending, 
everything has to be on the table, including defense. This amendment is 
a tiny, thoughtful cut to an outsized nuclear budget for weapons that 
do little to keep us safe.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in cutting funds not requested by 
the Department of Energy for nuclear upgrades not needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Quigley for bringing 
forward this important amendment. There

[[Page 11113]]

has been growing concerns, in fact, raised by the Air Force's 2008 Blue 
Ribbon Review regarding the effectiveness and vulnerabilities of the 
B61s.
  The B61 bomb was originally developed and placed in Europe during the 
Cold War for Cold War-era threats. Today, according to General James 
Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
military utility of the B61 is ``practically nil.'' Let me repeat that: 
According to General James Cartwright, the military utility of the B61 
is practically nil.
  Despite the lack of utility, the price tag continues to rise. As it 
rises, some of our allies, like Germany, have called for the B61s to be 
removed from their borders. There is no reason that we should spend 
more and more taxpayer dollars on programs that aren't even needed or 
wanted by our NATO allies and don't contribute to our national 
security.
  These missiles are a kind of saving opportunity that we need to take 
advantage of. Given our fiscal restraints, we need to ensure that 
taxpayer dollars are not wasted on programs that don't protect our 
national security.
  This amendment is simple: it cuts the B61 program back to the 
agency's own request level, saving $23.7 million. To me, this is about 
as much of a no-brainer of a cut that we can find. Let's do it.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' 
on the Quigley-Polis amendment.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Our bill provides $560 billion for the B61 Life Extension Program, 
$23.7 million above the request.
  I understand there are concerns about the cost of the refurbishment 
of the B61 and the committee shares those concerns. As a result, this 
bill contains a provision that requires that NNSA provide a full 
analysis of the alternatives that were considered. But failing to move 
forward without the full support of the B61 refurbishment will put that 
program even further behind what is already a tight schedule.
  The Government Accountability Office conducted a study of the B61 
Life Extension Program in 2011 and reported there was no room left in 
the refurbishment schedule. If the Life Extension Program slips further 
behind, there will be gaps in the United States commitment to our NATO 
allies.
  In fiscal year 2012, NNSA performed a full cost estimate for the B61 
refurbishment, and the Department of Defense Office of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation validated those costs. This was the most 
comprehensive and accurate performed by the NNSA on a life extension to 
date--aka the administration was behind the most comprehensive and 
accurate report on the program to date--and the costs, by everybody's 
admission, were admittedly staggering.
  Those costs were ultimately verified and provided to the committee in 
a cost report. The amount of funding in this bill is consistent with 
that cost report and provides $23.7 million above the amount requested, 
which fell slightly short of the validated figures.
  The National Nuclear Security Administration explained the shortfall 
away by stating they would find unspecified ``efficiencies in the 
program,'' hence the additional money.
  While I do support a concerted effort that will lower the cost of 
this program to the taxpayer, we never received any plan on how the 
NNSA--aka the administration--proposes to find savings. This is not the 
first time this has happened.
  The administration has as a stated goal to reduce the overall cost of 
the W76 Life Extension Program. The Department of Energy's inspector 
general reported there was no credible plan to make savings and that 
the lower funding levels being requested would simply lead to delays in 
the refurbishment.
  We cannot allow the B61 Life Extension Program to be further delayed 
given the important role it serves in providing a nuclear umbrella to 
our allies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with what the gentleman 
from New Jersey, the chairman of the subcommittee, has just said, and I 
rise in opposition to this amendment.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, we have debated similar 
concepts recently and we rejected them. This would be harmful to our 
national security. The reason, besides what the chairman from New 
Jersey has already said, these weapons are forward deployed in Europe 
to support NATO and are employed also by U.S. strategic forces in the 
continental United States.
  If we do not extend the life of the B61, here is what the Department 
of Defense has said:

       Failure to fully fund the B61 Life Extension Program will 
     be viewed by NATO and other allies as a weakening in the 
     overall U.S.-extended deterrence commitment, potentially 
     prompting certain allies to pursue their own nuclear program.

  Unless you want other countries in the world to start their own 
nuclear programs from scratch to develop their own weapons systems, 
increasing proliferation, then you want to reject this amendment, 
because that will potentially be the result if the U.S. deterrence is 
weakened. That's what this amendment does.
  It is important that we do the Life Extension Program also because 
under New START, which this country entered into recently with Russia, 
it was determined that we would be upgrading the remaining weapons. We 
are making dramatic reductions in the amount of the nuclear weapons in 
our stockpile, so those that remain have to be more reliable or we made 
a bad deal.
  To make sure that those remaining weapons are more reliable we do the 
Life Extension Programs. The B61 weapons we are talking about are 30 
years or more old. They are degrading. They are using sometimes 
obsolescent parts, so they are not as secure as they could be. We need 
to do the Life Extension Program for that reason as well.
  For all these reasons, I would ask that we strongly oppose and reject 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2200

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect and have enjoyed this thoughtful 
debate that we've had in the last few minutes about this issue, 
particularly because it raises critical issues about our relationships 
with our NATO allies, but let's look at the big picture here.
  The 2010 START Treaty with Russia, which passed the Senate in 2009, 
requires that Russia and the United States reduce their stockpiles to a 
maximum of 1,550 nuclear weapons by 2018. Let's look at what people are 
talking about now, people we respect.
  General James Cartwright, retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff and former commander of the U.S. nuclear forces; Richard Burt, 
a former chief nuclear arms negotiator; Chuck Hagel, current Secretary 
of Defense; Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Russia; and 
General John J. Sheehan, a former senior NATO official, all issued a 
report noting that the United States' nuclear deterrence could be 
guaranteed with 900 nuclear weapons.
  According to General Cartwright:

       The world has changed, but the current arsenal carries the 
     baggage of the Cold War . . . What is it we're really trying 
     to deter? Our current arsenal does not address the threats of 
     the 21st century.

  Let's talk about our NATO allies.
  Steve Andreasen, the Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control on 
the

[[Page 11114]]

National Security Council, recently argued:

       Wouldn't it be more reassuring and wiser burden-sharing to 
     spend this money on weapons and capabilities that are more 
     relevant to the threats NATO faces today? Indeed, why would 
     allies be reassured by an investment that provides no real 
     military capability and no modicum of deterrence beyond that 
     already provided by the U.S., Britain, and France, each of 
     which has nuclear arsenals capable of obliterating any 
     adversary?

  The biggest concerns for NATO right now include threats from Mali and 
Syria, nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The B61 can do nothing to 
address those threats.
  I close by reminding us that four great American statesmen--George 
Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn--argued for the 
elimination of these short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward 
deployed--that is, the B61--in their landmark 2007 op-ed.
  Ms. KAPTUR. In reclaiming my time, I would like to lend support to 
the amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois.
  His amendment would cut funding from the weapons account in the 
amount that was added to the President's budget request for the B61. In 
these tight fiscal times, all programs must find efficiencies, and the 
$23.7 million was the amount that the administration estimated could be 
achieved for this activity.
  So I want to thank the gentleman very much for his efforts and for 
waiting all day. We have to proceed in order.
  I know it's excruciatingly difficult for such an athlete, like 
yourself, with all that pent-up energy and drive, to have to wait until 
this late in the evening, but we thank you for the contribution you 
have made in many ways, including in offering this amendment tonight.
  I ask my colleagues to support his efforts, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                    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 by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
  Amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  Amendment by Mr. Swalwell of California.
  Amendment by Mr. McClintock of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Peters of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado.
  Amendment by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Amendment by Mr. Takano of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Takano of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Heck of Nevada.
  Amendment by Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina.
  Amendment by Mr. Foster of Illinois.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Cohen) 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 168, 
noes 241, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               AYES--168

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Costa
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     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
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--241

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     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
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     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
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     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
     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
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Visclosky

[[Page 11115]]


     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Barber
     Campbell
     Cole
     Franks (AZ)
     Garcia
     Gosar
     Heck (WA)
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McDermott
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2228

  Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mrs. CAPITO, and 
Mr. POSEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. POCAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 256, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               AYES--158

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     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
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--256

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     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
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     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
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     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)
     Tiberi
     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
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2232

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 317, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 213, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 318]

                               AYES--201

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     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
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi

[[Page 11116]]


     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     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
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     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--213

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     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
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     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
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--20

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2235

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 318, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115, 
noes 300, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--115

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Daines
     DeSantis
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Marchant
     Massie
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross
     Royce
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--300

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone

[[Page 11117]]


     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--19

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2239

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


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Peters of California

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 223, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               AYES--191

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     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
     Costa
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     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
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     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
     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
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     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
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--20

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2242

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


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Perlmutter

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 238, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 321]

                               AYES--177

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney

[[Page 11118]]


     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     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
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     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
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--238

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     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
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     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
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     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
     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
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2246

  Mr. WESTMORELAND 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. Connolly

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 242, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 322]

                               AYES--174

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     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
     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
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     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
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     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

[[Page 11119]]


     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
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     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
     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
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     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)
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2249

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Takano

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the first 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 252, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 323]

                               AYES--164

     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
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     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
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--252

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     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
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     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
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     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
     Rangel
     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 (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     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)
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2252

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Takano

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the second 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 2-minute vote.

[[Page 11120]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 250, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               AYES--166

     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
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     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
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--250

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     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
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     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
     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
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rangel
     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
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     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)
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2257

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


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck of Nevada

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 81, 
noes 325, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 325]

                                AYES--81

     Amodei
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Cartwright
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (NV)
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     Nadler
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pocan
     Polis
     Rohrabacher
     Ruiz
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman

                               NOES--335

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta

[[Page 11121]]


     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     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
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     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)
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2301

  Messrs. DUNCAN of South Carolina and MORAN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. LEE of California and Ms. CLARKE changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150, 
noes 266, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 326]

                               AYES--150

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     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
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--266

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     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)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schwartz
     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
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     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)
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2304

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Foster) 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.

[[Page 11122]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, 
noes 273, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 327]

                               AYES--143

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--273

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     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, 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
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     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)
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2307

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


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck of Nevada

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

       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $14,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $16,546,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member for the work they've done on this 
bill; but I especially want to thank the Appropriations Committee staff 
for helping me fine-tune this amendment very quickly at the last 
minute.
  My amendment transfers $60 million from the International Material 
Protection and Removal Activities within the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative to a program that will help secure our nuclear materials 
here at home. This year's budget request included funding for a project 
to construct a security perimeter around the Nevada National Security 
Site. Additionally, this funding was authorized by this House when we 
voted to pass H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act of 
2014. However, the bill under consideration fails to provide funding 
for this critical project.
  I agree that we must work with other nations to ensure their nuclear 
material does not fall into the wrong hands, and applaud the 
committee's efforts on this front. However, we should not neglect 
priorities to secure nuclear material on our own soil while providing 
$20 million in excess of what was requested to help foreign countries 
secure their nuclear materials.
  I'm simply requesting we transfer a relatively small sum--$16 million 
out of a total $2.1 billion--from a portion of the bill that provides 
funding to other countries to secure their nuclear materials and 
instead use that money to secure our own facilities containing nuclear 
materials. This funding will be used for the DAF/Argus project, which 
will provide a state-of-the-art perimeter intrusion detection and 
assessment system at the Nevada National Security Site's Device 
Assembly Facility.
  As I mentioned, this project is a priority for the Nevada National 
Security Site and was included in the President's budget request and 
authorized by this House just last month. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment which will prioritize national security concerns 
here at home while still providing adequate funding to ensure nuclear 
material in other countries does not fall into the hands of those who 
wish to do us harm.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment and I salute, obviously, his desire to protect all of our 
nuclear sites. I certainly share the gentleman's concern for the 
security of nuclear weapons infrastructure.

[[Page 11123]]

  The security incursion at Y-12 in Oak Ridge in July of 2012 revealed 
some disturbing problems with Federal oversight that directly impacted 
the effectiveness of the protective forces. In particular, a botched 
security upgrade project caused an excessive number of false alarms, 
which distracted the security forces. And poor maintenance practices 
meant the security cameras where the protesters entered the high-
security area were not working.
  There is also a second security upgrade project at Los Alamos that 
was installed incorrectly. The National Nuclear Security Administration 
is still working on getting that project back on track.
  We need to be able to upgrade our security systems, but I have 
concerns that taking on a third project in 2014 will lead to more 
problems.

                              {time}  2315

  Our report has directed NNSA to wait a year before starting the 
project at Nevada. Given the problems, I feel this is the most prudent 
path forward and will give the administration some time to implement 
the reforms that are so urgently needed in security oversight and 
project management. So I must reluctantly oppose the amendment at this 
time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. While the amendment is a modest one in terms of the 
funding in the account, which is over $400 million, I cannot support 
further cuts in this program.
  The budget already has cut $16 million from the Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative, and that means nuclear material that exists 
globally in places that we know we need to remove it. So even though 
the gentleman's amendment is well intended, I think that we can't 
predict the consequences of this in terms of what we face globally to 
remove this material.
  I think it's very important to recognize that there are some 
unfriendly actors on the face of this Earth. And we want to remove 
material as best as possible, working with others around the world, as 
the program indicates, to reduce global threats that might result from 
those who shouldn't have this material in the first place.
  So I don't think that this is moving us in the right direction 
globally. I don't really think it's necessary. I thank the gentleman 
for bringing it to the attention of the body, but I think that 
nonproliferation in general is $600 million below last year's 
activities when you compare it to past accounts.
  So I think that this is not in the best interest of the country and 
not in the best interest of national security. So I oppose the 
gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HECK of Nevada. 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 Nevada will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

       Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $13,072,000)''.
       Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $13,072,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I'm offering an amendment that will reduce 
the funding level for the W76 by $13 million, back down to what the 
agency requested.
  The W76 is a 1970s-era submarine-launched ballistic missile that was 
first introduced into the stockpile by the Navy in 1978. This bill 
actually increases funding by $13 million to increase funding levels 
above those required by the New START Treaty.
  If the New START Treaty levels are in effect, it requires us to have 
1,550 nuclear weapons--plenty to deter any nuclear threat, plenty to 
obliterate any enemy, plenty to end life on Earth as we know it. Even 
if we were to reduce our stockpile to 1,000 nuclear weapons, the Arms 
Control Association stated that it would save over $39 billion. Now, 
this amendment doesn't even come close to going that far, but this puts 
that in perspective. If we reduced our number of nuclear weapons from 
1,500, enough to obliterate any enemy and destroy life as we know it on 
Earth, to 1,000, enough to obliterate any enemy and end life as we know 
it on Earth, it would save $39 billion. This amendment very simply 
reduces funding by $13 million, back to what the agency itself 
requested. It doesn't detract from nuclear preparedness at all.
  These missiles are a continuing relic of Cold War policies that spend 
billions of taxpayer dollars every year. And it's a great opportunity 
for Congress to save taxpayer money while maintaining our national 
security. In fact, the current bill actually spends millions more than 
the military needs, and passage of my amendment will encourage a 
focused, agile, lean military policy.
  In fact, a total of $1.8 billion is projected to be spent on W76 by 
2016. That's a lot of money to support a very dated set of 
preparedness. My amendment makes a small dent in that by reducing the 
funding back to what the agency itself has requested.
  When we have these kinds of opportunities to maintain our national 
security and create savings for our country and reduce our budget 
deficit, we need to take it.
  Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists has argued 
that while the W76 is important for national security, we could 
``probably reduce the refurbishment production by half and still retain 
enough W76 warheads on the submarines for a credible retaliatory 
capability.'' Again, my amendment doesn't even come close to the marker 
that was set by Hans Kristensen. It simply returns funding to the level 
that the agency itself has asked for and reduces funding by $13 
million.
  The GAO has been critical of the cost, schedule, and risk involved 
with the W76 program. It is an area that is ripe for a relatively minor 
cut like this, which will help reduce our budget deficit by $13 
million.
  My amendment would create $13 million in savings for taxpayers while 
maintaining our national security. I strongly urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to support it.
  The primary goals of the extension program extends the life of the 
original warheads from 20 to 60 years, addresses the aging issues, and 
refurbishes the system in a managed fashion. However, all these goals 
are accomplished under the funding levels that have been requested by 
the agency. And yet here in Congress, we're second-guessing the 
agency's own funding requirements and saying let's give you more money, 
take a few million more, take a few million more--a few million more 
while we cut ARPA-E, a few million more while we cut science programs, 
a few million more while we shortcut our own Nation's renewable energy 
future. And yet here's a few million more, $13 million more than an 
agency is even requesting, to maintain nuclear deterrents at the level 
of 1,550 nuclear weapons, and maintaining these particular W76 warheads 
from the 1970s, deployed by submarines, that we don't even need the $13 
million to accomplish.
  So, again, I think this is some commonsense savings. I encourage my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this smart cut, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  The W76 life extension program is a critical ongoing program to 
extend the life of that warhead. This warhead supports the mission of 
our Navy's ballistic missile submarines, the most survivable leg of our 
nuclear deterrent.

[[Page 11124]]

  Our nuclear deterrent posture relies heavily on this Navy mission, 
but the President's budget request proposed to cut production of the 
W76 by nearly 20 percent. I'm very concerned that these reductions to 
the W76 were proposed without fully explaining the force structure 
implications or the impacts to national security.
  Therefore, this bill restores full funding for the W76 to the levels 
previously provided to the committee last year in the NNSA's last 
acquisition report. Even the Department of Energy's inspector general 
provided a report that stated that the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's plans to try to reduce costs of the ongoing W76 
program would not be achieved. That IG concluded the NNSA would need 
additional funds above the request to stay on track with their 
production requirements. This bill resolves those funding problems by 
increasing funding $13 million above the request.
  I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear 
     nonproliferation 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, $2,100,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of Energy may make available from funds provided under this 
     heading in this Act not more than $48,000,000 for the purpose 
     of carrying out domestic uranium enrichment research, 
     development, and demonstration activities.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

       Page 30, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $48,000,000)''.
       Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $48,000,000)''.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the Federal Government is 
having to make tough, painful choices on how to prioritize taxpayer 
dollars, this Congress has yet to learn the lessons of the past as to 
where we waste the most money. In fact yet again this year, as in so 
many years past, the bill before us insists on throwing good money 
after bad. It's time to put an end to that wasteful habit.
  This amendment would strike $48 million from the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation account, which is an earmark for a bailout to a 
failing uranium enrichment company, the United States Enrichment 
Corporation, known as USEC. This $48 million would be put towards 
deficit reduction.
  Look, opponents of the amendment are going to claim that this money 
is necessary, vitally necessary, for national security when, in fact, 
that could not be further from the truth. In fact, the question of 
whether the United States Enrichment Corporation is truly necessary for 
our national security needs is actually being reviewed right now by the 
Government Accountability Office, which is expected to release a report 
on both the national security question as well as the economics of 
sending further taxpayer dollars to the United States Enrichment 
Corporation.
  Because the report is pending, it is in the best interests of hard-
earned taxpayer dollars that we suspend any further aid to USEC until 
we have more information as to what the company is doing with the money 
that it is receiving.
  Indeed, the United States Enrichment Corporation is so poorly run 
that, last May, the New York Stock Exchange threatened to delist USEC 
due to its desperate financial health. Articles over the years have 
documented USEC's financial woes, including the near-monthly collapse 
of its stock prices. During the June shareholders meeting just a few 
weeks ago, 80 percent of USEC's shareholders voted to approve a reverse 
stock split due to its rock-bottom share prices. It's shocking to most 
observers that the company has avoided bankruptcy thus far, and it's 
only done so because of the continued bailout by Congress year after 
year in the Energy and Water appropriations bill.
  As if USEC's financial troubles were not enough, just last month the 
company filed a Federal lawsuit against the United States for more than 
$38 million. This House is contemplating giving $48 million to USEC; 
they've got a lawsuit for $38 million.
  Two decades ago, Congress created, by charter, the United States 
Enrichment Corporation, believing that USEC could better run the 
uranium enrichment facilities than the government itself. But by now, 
it should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that Congress 
was wrong.
  Since its inception, USEC has squandered billions of dollars in 
Federal bailouts, running its operations to near insolvency because of 
poor decisions. Yearly, they come to the Congress and the executive 
branch, hat in hand, begging for millions of dollars in bailouts to 
continue operation sites that are technologically out of date.
  It is time that the Federal Government stop the endless bailouts to a 
failing enterprise.
  Moreover, USEC has been a bad-faith actor in its negotiations with 
the uranium mining industry, which provides the needed raw materials to 
be enriched at these facilities. And what motivation does USEC have to 
negotiate in good faith with the miners when it knows that if it 
doesn't get everything it wants from the miners it can simply go to the 
Department of Energy and receive a handout, time and again, either in 
the form of a direct cash payment or in the form of spent uranium 
tails?
  The Department of Energy has had a longstanding agreement with the 
uranium mining industry not to dump more than 10 percent of the 
market's worth of uranium in handouts to USEC at any given time. Yet it 
has become increasingly clear that the Department of Energy is willing 
to ignore that agreement and provide any bailout that USEC requests or 
desires.
  This betrayal of the mining industry threatens thousands of jobs 
across the western United States--States like Texas, Nevada, New 
Mexico, Illinois, and Wyoming, to name a few. Arguments that USEC is 
the only facility that can supply tritium to the Department of Defense 
ignores the plain language of the Washington Treaty and the U.S.-India 
Nuclear Agreement, known as the 123 Agreement.

                              {time}  2330

  The Department of Energy has in its possession enough highly enriched 
uranium and tritium to last for 15 years, costing hundreds of millions 
of dollars less than the continued bailouts that USEC is currently 
receiving from the country.
  It is time that Congress stood up against the continual bailouts of a 
failed business model. Propping up one failed company at the expense of 
an entire industry is not how we should operate in Congress. Let's end 
the bailout, let's return the money to the Treasury, let's give the 
hardworking taxpayer a break. It is time we did the right thing.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. This is the final year of funding to a project 
to construct a limited number of centrifuges

[[Page 11125]]

in order to demonstrate this technology can provide a domestic 
capability for enriching uranium. This capability is needed to ensure 
adequate supplies of enriched uranium for our defense needs.
  Domestically enriched uranium is needed to supply tritium for the 
nuclear weapons stockpile and will eventually be needed to fuel the 
nuclear reactors on board our submarines and aircraft carriers. Even 
though we have found a way to supply all our needs for the next few 
years, there is still no plan on how we will fulfill our defense 
requirements after the limited amount of fuel has been expended.
  In every future scenario, we will ultimately need to make an 
investment to ensure unencumbered enriched uranium is available. There 
is no reason to cut off funding for a project that is showing progress.
  The total cost of this project was originally estimated to cost $300 
million, but the project is proceeding extremely well, it remains on 
budget, and is on schedule for completion this December. Because of 
these and other expected cost savings from uranium transfers, the 
overall cost to the taxpayer has been reduced and could be reduced 
further.
  The bill provides the Department with special reprogramming authority 
to fund the final $48 million installment, instead of direct funding. 
Providing the Department with flexibility on how to fulfill its portion 
of the cost-sharing agreement could reduce the overall costs of the 
program if that same progress continues and the full funding amount is 
not ultimately needed.
  This is a responsible approach that meets our defense needs while 
potentially saving taxpayer dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas.
  First of all, the American centrifuge project is the only source of 
domestic enriched uranium--the only source. I think that is important 
for us to understand America is fighting for its manufacturing future 
on many fronts, including this one.
  One needs enriched uranium in order to make tritium. Tritium is 
essentially for our nuclear weapons complex and enriched uranium is 
necessary for commercial operations. This single facility is really 
important because our country is running out of what we would call 
``U.S. flag material,'' material that can be used for these distinct 
purposes.
  As Chairman Frelinghuysen has said, this program is currently on 
schedule and within budget. That is in stark contrast to some of the 
other programs that we've been trying to get control of in our 
subcommittee.
  While foreign-owned facilities exist, and there are some in this 
Chamber who represent those facilities, there is a true need for a 
domestic supplier. The program in question was proposed by the 
Department of Energy to meet crucial national security and 
nonproliferation needs, and DOE has certified completion of two of the 
five program technical milestones. There are remaining three and they, 
as the chairman has said, are scheduled for completion in December and 
are completely on track.
  This is an important program, I would say an essential program, to 
our country. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong opposition 
to the amendment offered by my good friend from Texas.
  First and foremost, my opposition to this amendment is about national 
security. Since the 1940s, the United States has had a U.S.-owned and -
operated uranium enrichment entity in place. This allows the U.S. to 
control its uranium stockpile, to be a signatory to nuclear weapons 
treaties, and make sure that we do not rely solely on foreign-owned 
companies for our uranium needs.
  This amendment would put this streak of nearly 70 years in jeopardy 
if it were to pass and would leave the U.S. without any domestic 
producer of enriched uranium.
  Some will say that we can rely on a foreign-owned company in New 
Mexico to supply our uranium needs. First, the National Nuclear 
Security Administration and the Department of State have made it clear 
that we will never be able to rely on a foreign-owned company for our 
nuclear weapon triggers, to fuel our nuclear military fleet, or for any 
other national security purpose, period, end of story.
  Even if we could rely on a foreign-owned company for these purposes, 
I have serious concerns about this company. This company in question is 
the former employer of AQ Khan, the man responsible for giving away 
nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. The company did not 
have the controls in place to safeguard their secrets. As we now know, 
Pandora's box was opened because of AQ Khan and the lack of oversight 
of this company.
  How can we now consider giving them sole control of our country's 
uranium enrichment process? This would put our national security at 
risk if we ever changed our laws to allow foreign-owned outsourcing of 
uranium enrichment.
  Furthermore, if this amendment passes, it will likely cost the 
taxpayers billions more in the long-run. The United States Enrichment 
Corporation is a publicly-owned corporation that has invested and will 
invest billions of private sector money into developing new and 
improved enrichment technology. If USEC is not able to finish their 
research program and goes belly up, the Federal Government will be 
forced to start a new enrichment program from scratch and spend 
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to start up its own 
uranium enrichment program.
  So we can either spend $40 million plus now and leverage billions of 
dollars of private investment, or we can be here a year from now 
appropriating billions of dollars more. I will take $40 million today 
over billions of dollars tomorrow any day.
  In addition, the taxpayer is protected from failure of this research 
program. The Department of Energy is both the owner of the intellectual 
property of the centrifuge machines and even of the machines 
themselves. DOE will be able to recoup any taxpayer money that goes 
into the project. But make no mistake: if this project is stopped, DOE 
will have to spend billions more of taxpayer money to get the project 
up to scale as opposed to billions of dollars coming from the private 
sector.
  Finally, this amendment, if passed, would be a jobs killer. The 
American Centrifuge Project currently employs over 1,000 people in 
multiple States. Furthermore, the project utilizes over 160 American 
supplier companies in at least 28 States. All of that would go away if 
this amendment were to pass.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that a similar amendment 
was offered last year on the Energy and Water appropriations bill with 
my friend from Texas and the new Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Markey. 
It was easily defeated because of all of these very same reasons. 
Nothing has changed in the last year.
  I urge all of my colleagues to again defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I join with the chairman and ranking 
member, a fellow Ohioan, in opposition to this amendment.
  I strongly oppose the gentleman from Texas' amendment, as it would 
seriously undermine our national security.
  Specifically, this amendment would strike a provision providing the 
Department of Energy with the authority to use existing funds for 
domestic uranium enrichment technology development. Let me emphasize 
that there is

[[Page 11126]]

no direct funding in the bill for the project. The provision simply 
provides the authority to transfer existing funds from other Department 
of Energy programs.
  In the last Congress, as we have previously spoken, the Congress beat 
two amendments that were offered that were similar, both with strong 
opposition to these amendments.
  According to the National Nuclear Security Administration, in the 
near future, the United States will need a fully domestic source of 
unrestricted enriched uranium, based on domestically-developed 
technology, to support the nuclear weapons program and Navy nuclear 
reactors program.
  The United States is prohibited from seeking this material 
internationally. Regardless of the agreements, the United States must 
never rely on foreign companies for such a critical component of our 
nuclear deterrent. Simply stated, we need U.S.-owned domestic supply of 
enriched uranium, and the use of a foreign supplied material would 
violate these long-standing policies and agreements.
  This has been defeated twice before, and this is really simple. It 
has been defeated because this is a critical component of our nuclear 
deterrent. Do we want to depend on foreign or do we want to have a 
domestic source? Congress has twice said it would be crazy to 
jeopardize our nuclear deterrent and rely on foreign sources. Congress 
should again for the third time defeat this amendment because we need 
to rely on domestic in protecting the United States nuclear deterrent.
  I urge my colleagues to once again oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This funding, which supports our Nation's domestic uranium enrichment 
capabilities, is vital for our national security and our energy 
security and independence. The RD&D program, located in the American 
Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, is the cornerstone for a domestic 
source of enriched uranium.
  American Centrifuge is necessary to support our national defense 
program needs, including supporting tritium production requirements for 
the U.S. nuclear stockpile. USEC has received no bailouts. It is 
inaccurate and misleading to use this politically-charged term in 
connection with an important national and energy security technology. I 
strongly believe that American Centrifuge is too important to our 
Nation's national and energy security to abandon now.
  It is vital that the United States maintain a domestic technology to 
provide enriched uranium for national security purposes.
  We must have a U.S.-owned domestic supply of enriched uranium. With 
the closure of the 1950s-era Paducah enrichment plant, American 
Centrifuge is the only available technology to meet the Nation's future 
national security needs for enriched uranium.
  Thankfully, we don't have to rely on foreign sources. The RD&D 
program is within budget and on schedule for completion by December 
2013. This funding is not an earmark, as it was included in the budget 
request and there is no direct funding in the bill for the project. The 
provision simply provides the authority to transfer existing funds from 
other DOE programs.
  The Burgess amendment would remove the final piece of funding needed 
to complete the RD&D program, shutting down operations and essentially 
wasting the $200 million that has already been spent.
  I urge you to support domestic uranium enrichment technology and 
oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

       Page 30, line 6, strike the colon and all that follows 
     through ``activities'' on line 11.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this is a continuation of the previous 
amendment. I was advised by the Parliamentarian it had to be split into 
two parts. So not to belabor the issue because of the lateness of the 
hour, the first amendment that was just voted on will remove the 
funding. This removes the language from the bill, the words ``provided 
that the Secretary of Energy may make available from funds provided 
under this heading in this act not more than $48 million for the 
purposes of carrying out domestic and uranium enrichment research 
development and demonstration activities.''
  It is apparently necessary to remove that language as a separate 
amendment. It could not be included in a single amendment. So this is a 
continuation of the discussion that we just had.
  Recognizing the lateness of the hour, I will yield back the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  2345

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Following the doctor's lead, for the reasons I 
opposed this amendment the last time, I oppose this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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

       Page 30, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the committee has done a considerable 
amount of work on one of the very expensive facilities we have in the 
nuclear arena. This is the MOX facility in South Carolina.
  In the current report language, the committee deals with the problem 
that this facility has. It's over budget, isn't going anywhere, will 
ultimately produce a product that nobody wants. So what I'm trying to 
do with this amendment is to take this thing one step further in order 
to try to find a solution to this very, very expensive problem. If I 
might just quote the committee's report here:

       Despite the influx of additional funding, the NNSA has been 
     unable to recover its schedule and is now facing another $2.8 
     billion in additional costs. Instead of its fulfilling its 
     responsibility to address these rising costs through 
     reforming its management of the project and conducting an 
     independent cost estimate to quantify these cost increases, 
     the NNSA wrote ``TBD''--which I suspect means ``to be 
     determined''--in its budget justification and removed all 
     project funding from its 5-year plan while it carries out a 
     strategic pause.

  This program is in deep trouble, and it is a hole into which the U.S. 
taxpayers continue to pour money. I am pleased that the committee is 
taking steps, but I'd like the bill to take an additional step, and 
that's what this amendment does. Let me explain what it is all about.
  Technically, the bill takes $1 million from the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation and reinserts the same amount

[[Page 11127]]

into that account. This is done in order to avoid a point of order. The 
legislative intent of the amendment is therefore to remove the $1 
million from the funding from the MOX facility at the Savannah River 
site and then direct the NNSA to instead use these funds for:
  One, an independent report to analyze the potential cost-effective 
alternatives for plutonium disposition, including a detailed assessment 
of technologically feasible costs; and, two, a study examining whether 
there are other potential uses for the facilities already built and for 
the Savannah River site more generally.
  While not legally binding, the Agency should comply with this 
legislative intent if this amendment is adopted.
  The amendment is consistent with an amendment that I offered earlier 
with regard to the NDAA, and the language would be similar. I would 
urge the adoption of this. We really need to try to figure out the very 
best way to deal with this sinkhole of taxpayer money.
  With that, 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Our bill supports the most responsible path forward for dealing with 
this ongoing and troubled project.
  The National Nuclear Security Administration has stated it is 
conducting a strategic pause to pursue other alternatives to the MOX 
plant in light of what are very large cost increases. However, it has 
not provided any information on what new alternatives are available 
which have not already been exhaustively considered. While there are 
considerable and valid concerns about the project's management and cost 
growth, the United States must fulfill its end of the plutonium 
disposition agreement, and more delays will only raise costs.
  It is time for the Department of Energy to fix these issues and to 
get back on track with meeting its commitments. There is no value in 
prolonging this study into fiscal year 2014.
  I urge 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. Let me just say that I normally agree with the gentleman 
from California on many issues. On this particular one, we will part 
company, but I certainly appreciate his commitment.
  In the report, we state that we provide no additional funding to 
continue studying the alternatives to the MOX plant and that the NNSA 
has not described any alternatives which have not already been 
exhaustively considered or which are likely to resolve in any 
substantial cost savings to justify this pause, particularly with no 
permanent nuclear waste repository available after the Department's 
decision to unilaterally terminate Yucca Mountain.
  So there are reasons for the MOX facility. We have made an enormous 
investment in it, and thousands of jobs are at stake. I am very sorry 
that we have to part company on this, but I have the highest respect 
for you and your work.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I appreciate the respect. You and the chairman have 
made a very good argument for my amendment, and I thank you for that.
  My amendment doesn't do anything that you're not already trying to 
do. It simply gives some more specific direction to the Department, 
specifically to seek outside analysis of the alternatives that might be 
available.
  Clearly, the Department has not been successful in running this 
project, and they are not in the process of seeking outside help. 
They're going to try to do it inside. I think that would be a mistake. 
There are people out there--there are companies and there are actually 
researchers outside--who could provide that outside view of what's 
going on.
  Secondly, there are other ways of dealing with this problem. This is 
an aqueous process that's being used there, and it simply isn't 
working. There are other ways of disposing of the plutonium and of the 
highly enriched uranium that are proven to work--I discussed this 
earlier this day--and we need to study whether that can be used at this 
facility. We're not talking about jobs. We are actually talking about 
making this facility work and possibly using a different technology, 
but we really need to have somebody outside take a look at this whole 
thing.
  Both you and the ranking member and the chair have adequately 
explained why my language should be adopted. I thank you for the 
committee's looking at this thing in a very hard, structured way. It 
has to be dealt with.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             Naval Reactors

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval 
     reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or 
     otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment, 
     facilities, and facility expansion, $1,109,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That $43,212,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2015, for program direction.

                      Office of the Administrator

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator 
     in the National Nuclear Security Administration, including 
     official reception and representation expenses not to exceed 
     $12,000, $382,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2015.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 46, line 15 be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one sport utility vehicle, three lube trucks, 
     and one fire truck for replacement only, $4,750,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That $280,784,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2015, for program 
     direction.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense, 
     other defense activities, and classified 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, $830,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount, $122,734,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2015 for program direction.

                     POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATION

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     construction of, or participating in the construction of, a 
     high voltage line from Bonneville's high voltage system to 
     the service areas of requirements customers located within 
     Bonneville's service area in southern Idaho, southern 
     Montana, and western Wyoming; and such line may extend to, 
     and interconnect in, the Pacific Northwest with lines between 
     the Pacific Northwest and the Pacific Southwest, and for John 
     Day Reprogramming and Construction, the Columbia River Basin 
     White Sturgeon Hatchery,

[[Page 11128]]

     and Kelt Reconditioning and Reproductive Success Evaluation 
     Research, and, in addition, for official reception and 
     representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $5,000: 
     Provided, That during fiscal year 2014, no new direct loan 
     obligations may be made.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary 
     services, pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power 
     area, and including official reception and representation 
     expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500, $7,750,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944, up to $7,750,000 collected by the 
     Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of power and 
     related services shall be credited to this account as 
     discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available 
     until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual 
     expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses 
     shall be reduced as collections are received during the 
     fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2014 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $78,081,000 collected by the Southeastern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to 
     recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further, 
     That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, for construction and acquisition of transmission 
     lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, and for 
     administrative expenses, including official reception and 
     representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 in 
     carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 
     U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power 
     Administration, $45,456,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), 
     up to $33,564,000 collected by the Southwestern Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern 
     Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $11,892,000: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $42,000,000 collected 
     by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant to the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 to recover purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as 
     offsetting collections, to remain available until expended 
     for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
     expenditures: Provided further, That, for purposes of this 
     appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are 
     generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred 
     (excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).

 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area 
                          Power Administration

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7152), and other related activities including conservation 
     and renewable resources programs as authorized, including 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $1,500; $299,919,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $292,019,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the 
     Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a), 
     up to $203,989,000 collected by the Western Area Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area 
     Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $95,930,000, of which $88,030,000 is derived 
     from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $230,738,000 collected 
     by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant to the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project Act of 
     1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further, 
     That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $5,330,671, to remain available until expended, and to be 
     derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 
     Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in 
     section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255): 
     Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of that Act and 
     of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $4,910,671 collected by the Western 
     Area Power Administration from the sale of power and related 
     services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall be credited 
     to this account as discretionary offsetting collections, to 
     remain available until expended for the sole purpose of 
     funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities 
     of these Dams and associated Western Area Power 
     Administration activities: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $420,000: Provided further, That for purposes 
     of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures 
     that are generally recovered in the same year that they are 
     incurred: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2014, the 
     Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration may 
     accept up to $865,000 in funds contributed by United States 
     power customers of the Falcon and Amistad Dams for deposit 
     into the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, 
     and such funds shall be available for the purpose for which 
     contributed in like manner as if said sums had been 
     specifically appropriated for such purpose: Provided further, 
     That any such funds shall be available without further 
     appropriation and without fiscal year limitation for use by 
     the Commissioner of the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission for the sole 
     purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, 
     replacing, or upgrading the hydroelectric facilities at these 
     Dams in accordance with agreements reached between the 
     Administrator, Commissioner, and the power customers.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and 
     representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, $304,600,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $304,600,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 2014 shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall be 
     reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2014 so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation from 
     the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made 
     available by this title for the Department of Energy shall be 
     used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity 
     or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar 
     arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for 
     Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a 
     program, project, or activity if the program, project, or 
     activity has not been funded by Congress.
       (b)(1) Unless the Secretary of Energy notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate at least 3 full business days in advance, none 
     of the funds made available in this title may be used to--
       (A) make a grant allocation or discretionary grant award 
     totaling $1,000,000 or more;
       (B) make a discretionary contract award or Other 
     Transaction Agreement totaling in excess of $1,000,000, 
     including a contract covered by the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation;
       (C) issue a letter of intent to make an allocation, award, 
     or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph (A) or 
     (B); or
       (D) announce publicly the intention to make an allocation, 
     award, or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B).
       (2) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the

[[Page 11129]]

     House of Representatives and the Senate on the first business 
     day of each quarter a report detailing each grant allocation 
     or discretionary grant award totaling less than $1,000,000 
     provided during the previous quarter.
       (3) The notification required by paragraph (1) and the 
     report required by paragraph (2) shall include the recipient 
     of the award, the amount of the award, the fiscal year for 
     which the funds for the award were appropriated, the account 
     and program, project, or activity from which the funds are 
     being drawn, the title of the award, and a brief description 
     of the activity for which the award is made.
       (c) The Department of Energy may not, with respect to any 
     program, project, or activity that uses budget authority made 
     available in this title under the heading ``Department of 
     Energy--Energy Programs'', enter into a multiyear contract, 
     award a multiyear grant, or enter into a multiyear 
     cooperative agreement unless--
       (1) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is funded 
     for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time 
     of award; or
       (2) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement includes 
     a clause conditioning the Federal Government's obligation on 
     the availability of future year budget authority and the 
     Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate at least 3 days in 
     advance.
       (d) Except as provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g), 
     the amounts made available by this title shall be expended as 
     authorized by law for the programs, projects, and activities 
     specified in the ``Bill'' column in the ``Department of 
     Energy'' table or the text included under the heading ``Title 
     III--Department of Energy'' in the report of the Committee on 
     Appropriations accompanying this Act.
       (e) The amounts made available by this title may be 
     reprogrammed for any program, project, or activity, and the 
     Department shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate at least 30 days 
     prior to the use of any proposed reprogramming which would 
     cause any program, project, or activity funding level to 
     increase or decrease by more than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, 
     whichever is less, during the time period covered by this 
     Act.
       (f) None of the funds provided in this title shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates, initiates, or eliminates a program, project, 
     or activity;
       (2) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act; or
       (3) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
       (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy may waive any requirement or 
     restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds 
     made available for the Department of Energy if compliance 
     with such requirement or restriction would pose a substantial 
     risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national 
     security.
       (2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     of any waiver under paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but 
     not later than 3 days after the date of the activity to which 
     a requirement or restriction would otherwise have applied. 
     Such notice shall include an explanation of the substantial 
     risk under paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver.
       Sec. 302.  The unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be available to the 
     same appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with 
     funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter 
     may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
     originally enacted.
       Sec. 303.  Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or 
     made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2014 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014.
       Sec. 304.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used for the construction of facilities classified 
     as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830 
     unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of 
     Health, Safety, and Security to ensure the project is in 
     compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
       Sec. 305.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical 
     decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any 
     successive departmental guidance, for construction projects 
     where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a 
     separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the 
     project for that critical decision.
       Sec. 306.  Section 20320 of the Continuing Appropriations 
     Resolution, 2007, Public Law 109-289, division B, as amended 
     by the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, 
     Public Law 110-5, is amended by striking in subsection (c) 
     ``an annual review'' after ``conduct'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``a review every three years''.
       Sec. 307.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     subsequent Act for fiscal year 2014 or any fiscal year 
     hereafter may be used to pay the salaries of Department of 
     Energy employees to carry out the amendments made by section 
     407 of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act of 2009.
       Sec. 308.  Notwithstanding section 307 of Public Law 111-
     85, of the funds made available by the Department of Energy 
     for activities at Government-owned, contractor-operated 
     laboratories funded in this or any subsequent Energy and 
     Water Development appropriation Act for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary may authorize a specific amount, not to exceed 4.5 
     percent of such funds, to be used by such laboratories for 
     laboratory directed research and development.
       Sec. 309.  Notwithstanding section 301(c) of this Act, none 
     of the funds made available under the heading ``Department of 
     Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be used for a 
     multiyear contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other 
     Transaction Agreement of $1,500,000 or less unless the 
     contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction 
     Agreement is funded for the full period of performance as 
     anticipated at the time of award.
       Sec. 310.  Not later than June 30, 2014, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate a tritium and enriched 
     uranium management plan that provides--
        (a) an assessment of the national security demand for 
     tritium and low and highly enriched uranium through 2060;
       (b) a description of the Department of Energy's plan to 
     provide adequate amounts of tritium and enriched uranium for 
     national security purposes through 2060; and
       (c) an analysis of planned and alternative technologies 
     which are available to meet the supply needs for tritium and 
     enriched uranium for national security purposes, including 
     weapons dismantlement and down-blending.

  The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that section of the 
bill?
  Hearing none, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 311. (a) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate not later than December 1, 2013, a report 
     which provides an analysis of alternatives for each major 
     warhead refurbishment program that reaches Phase 6.3, 
     including--
       (1) A summary of the overall cost, scope, and schedule 
     planning assumptions for the major refurbishment activity;
       (2) A full description of alternatives considered prior to 
     the award of Phase 6.3;
       (3) A comparison of the costs and benefits of each of those 
     alternatives, to include an analysis of trade-offs among 
     cost, schedule, and performance objectives against each 
     alternative considered;
       (4) An assessment of the risks, costs, and scheduling needs 
     for each military requirement established by the Department 
     of Defense and/or any requirement established to enhance 
     safety, security, or maintainability;
       (5) Identification of the cost and risk of critical 
     technology elements associated with each refurbishment 
     alternative, including technology maturity, integration risk, 
     manufacturing feasibility, and demonstration needs; and
       (6) Identification of the cost and risk of capital asset 
     and infrastructure capabilities required to support 
     production and certification of each refurbishment 
     alternative.
       (b) The Secretary of Energy or the Secretary's designee 
     shall certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate that--
       (1) No less than three feasible and distinct alternatives 
     are considered prior to the award of milestone Phase 6.3 for 
     any major warhead refurbishment program; and
       (2) Appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, and 
     performance objectives have been made to ensure that the 
     program is affordable when considering the per unit cost and 
     the total acquisition cost in the context of the total 
     resources available during the period covered by the most 
     recent stockpile stewardship and management plan and the 
     future-years nuclear security plan submitted during the 
     fiscal year in which the certification is made.
       (c) In this section, the term ``major warhead refurbishment 
     program'' includes all nuclear weapons life extension 
     programs, alterations, and modifications carried out for the 
     life cycle management of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and 
     all non-routine nuclear weapons stockpile activities that are 
     estimated to cost over $1,000,000,000.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

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

       Page 46, beginning on line 16, amend section 311 to read as 
     follows:
       Sec. 311.  The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 
     101(a)(16)) not

[[Page 11130]]

     later than December 1, 2013, a report that provides an 
     analysis of alternatives for each major warhead refurbishment 
     program that reaches Phase 6.3, including--
       (1) a summary of the overall cost, scope, and schedule 
     planning assumptions for the major refurbishment activity;
       (2) a full description of alternatives considered prior to 
     the award of Phase 6.3;
       (3) a comparison of the costs and benefits of each of those 
     alternatives, to include an analysis of trade-offs among 
     cost, schedule, and performance objectives against each 
     alternative considered;
       (4) an assessment of the risks, costs, and scheduling needs 
     for each military requirement established by the Department 
     of Defense or any requirement established to enhance safety, 
     security, or maintainability;
       (5) identification of the cost and risk of critical 
     technology elements associated with each refurbishment 
     alternative, including technology maturity, integration risk, 
     manufacturing feasibility, and demonstration needs; and
       (6) identification of the cost and risk of capital asset 
     and infrastructure capabilities required to support 
     production and certification of each refurbishment 
     alternative.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (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 New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial 
amendment, worked out jointly with the minority and the authorizing 
committees.
  It would amend the existing section 311 to require only the report on 
analysis of alternatives for major weapons programs to be submitted to 
both the authorizers and appropriators. This is a change requested by 
the authorizers, and I am happy to be able to include it. I ask that 
this amendment be supported.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. We have no objection to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, 
     notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, and for necessary expenses 
     for the Federal Co-Chairman and the Alternate on the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment of the Federal 
     share of the administrative expenses of the Commission, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, $70,317,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $29,915,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2015: Provided, That of the amount provided 
     under this heading, $850,000 shall be made available to 
     procure Inspector General services from the Inspector General 
     of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

                        Delta Regional Authority

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and 
     to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta 
     Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections 
     382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, $11,319,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                           Denali Commission

       For expenses of the Denali Commission including the 
     purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
     equipment as necessary and other expenses, $7,396,000, to 
     remain available until expended, notwithstanding the 
     limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998: Provided, That funds shall be 
     available for construction projects in an amount not to 
     exceed 80 percent of total project cost for distressed 
     communities, as defined by section 307 of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998 (division C, title III, Public Law 
     105-277), as amended by section 701 of appendix D, title VII, 
     Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-280), and an amount not 
     to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.

                  Northern Border Regional Commission

       For necessary expenses of the Northern Border Regional 
     Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle 
     V of title 40, United States Code, $1,355,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall 
     be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding 
     section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 59, line 9 be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

       For necessary expenses of the Southeast Crescent Regional 
     Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle 
     V of title 40, United States Code, $250,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, including official representation 
     expenses (not to exceed $25,000), $1,043,937,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated herein, not more than $9,500,000 may be made 
     available for salaries, travel, and other support costs for 
     the Office of the Commission, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2015, of which, notwithstanding section 
     201(a)(2)(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5841(a)(2)(c)), the use and expenditure shall only be 
     approved by a majority vote of the Commission: Provided 
     further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $920,721,000 in fiscal year 2014 shall be retained and used 
     for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues 
     received during fiscal year 2014 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2014 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $123,216,000: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for 
     university research and development in areas relevant to 
     their respective organization's mission, and $5,000,000 shall 
     be for a Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program that 
     will support multiyear projects that do not align with 
     programmatic missions but are critical to maintaining the 
     discipline of nuclear science and engineering.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $11,105,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2015: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $9,994,000 in fiscal year 2014 shall be retained and be 
     available until September 30, 2015, for necessary salaries 
     and expenses in this account, notwithstanding section 3302 of 
     title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of 
     revenues received during fiscal year 2014 so as to result in 
     a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation estimated at not more 
     than $1,111,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $3,400,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2015.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

       For necessary expenses for the Office of the Federal 
     Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects 
     pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, $1,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That 
     any fees, charges, or commissions received pursuant to 
     section 106(h) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (15 
     U.S.C. 720d(h)) in fiscal year 2014 in excess of $2,402,000 
     shall not be available for obligation until appropriated in a 
     subsequent Act of Congress.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Sec. 401.  The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission may not terminate any program, project, or 
     activity without a majority vote of the Commissioners of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission approving such action.
       Sec. 402.  The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 1 
     day after the Chairman begins performing functions under the 
     authority of section 3 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980, 
     or after a member of the Commission who was delegated 
     emergency functions

[[Page 11131]]

     under subsection (b) of that section begins performing those 
     functions. Such notification shall include an explanation of 
     the circumstances warranting the exercise of such authority. 
     The Chairman shall report to the Committees, not less 
     frequently than once each week, on the actions taken by the 
     Chairman, or a delegated member of the Commission, under such 
     authority, until the authority is relinquished. The Chairman 
     shall notify the Committees not later than 1 day after such 
     authority is relinquished. The Chairman shall submit the 
     report required by section 3(d) of the Reorganization Plan 
     No. 1 of 1980 to the Committees not later than 1 day after it 
     was submitted to the Commission.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

             (including transfers and rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 501.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence 
     congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
     matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to 
     Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
       Sec. 502.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to eliminate or reduce funding for a program, 
     project, or activity as proposed in a President's budget 
     request for a fiscal year until such proposed change is 
     subsequently enacted in an appropriations Act, or unless such 
     change is made pursuant to the reprogramming and transfer 
     provisions of this Act.
       Sec. 503.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to any corporation 
     that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any 
     Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the 
     awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency 
     has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and 
     has made a determination that this further action is not 
     necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
       Sec. 504.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 
     assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies 
     have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being 
     paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the 
     authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where 
     the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, 
     unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of 
     the corporation and has made a determination that this 
     further action is not necessary to protect the interests of 
     the Government.
       Sec. 505. (a) None of the funds made available in title III 
     of this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government, except 
     pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided 
     in this Act or any other appropriation Act for any fiscal 
     year, transfer authority referenced in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, or any 
     authority whereby a department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the United States Government may provide goods or services to 
     another department, agency, or instrumentality.
       (b) None of the funds made available for any department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government 
     may be transferred to accounts funded in title III of this 
     Act, except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer 
     authority provided in this Act or any other appropriation Act 
     for any fiscal year, transfer authority referenced in the 
     report of the Committees on Appropriations accompanying this 
     Act, or any authority whereby a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government may provide 
     goods or services to another department, agency, or 
     instrumentality.
       (c) The head of any relevant department or agency funded in 
     this Act utilizing any transfer authority shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a semiannual report detailing the transfer 
     authorities, except for any authority whereby a department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government 
     may provide goods or services to another department, agency, 
     or instrumentality, used in the previous 6 months and in the 
     year-to-date. This report shall include the amounts 
     transferred and the purposes for which they were transferred, 
     and shall not replace or modify existing notification 
     requirements for each authority.
       Sec. 506.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of 
     February 11, 1994 (``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
     Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
     Populations'').
       Sec. 507.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be expended for any new hire by any Federal agency funded 
     in this Act that is not verified through the E-Verify Program 
     as described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note).
       Sec. 508. (a) Of the unobligated balances available from 
     prior year appropriations for the following accounts, the 
     following amounts are hereby permanently rescinded:
       (1) Under the heading ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--
     Department of the Army'', $200,000,000, to be derived by the 
     Secretary of the Army from funds made available for 
     ``Construction, General'', ``Flood Control, Mississippi River 
     and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee'', ``General 
     Investigations'', ``Construction'', ``Investigations'', and 
     ``Mississippi River and Tributaries''.
       (2) ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy 
     Efficiency and Renewable Energy'', $157,000,000.
       (3) ``Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense 
     Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons 
     Activities'', $142,000,000.
       (4) ``Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense 
     Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Defense 
     Nuclear Nonproliferation'', $20,000,000.
       (b) No amounts may be rescinded under this section from 
     amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.

  The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to this section?
  Hearing none, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 509.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to conduct closure of adjudicatory functions, 
     technical review, or support activities associated with the 
     Yucca Mountain geologic repository license application, or 
     for actions that irrevocably remove the possibility that 
     Yucca Mountain may be a repository option in the future.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Titus

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

       Page 59, lines 10 through 16, strike section 509.

  Ms. TITUS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to ask my colleagues to join 
me in protecting the fiduciary interests of the American taxpayer and 
in preserving the safety of my constituents in southern Nevada as well 
as of all of those who live along the proposed route for Yucca Mountain 
waste.
  My amendment would remove misguided language included in this bill 
that injects politics into a very serious and consequential debate 
surrounding the issue of nuclear waste disposal. This amendment would 
simply strike the language included in this bill that tries to restart 
the failed Yucca Mountain project by prohibiting the DOE from moving 
forward with plans to close Yucca Mountain and develop proposals for 
its alternative use.
  When the Department of Energy made the correct decision to put an end 
to the misguided Yucca Mountain project in 2010, they did so after 
decades of debate with nothing to show for it except for $15 billion 
wasted and a big hole in the ground. According to the Government 
Accountability Office, had the project been completed, it would have 
cost more than $80 billion. Those figures don't even take into account 
the cost of transporting 75,000 metric tons of highly radioactive 
nuclear waste thousands of miles across the country, through nearly 
every State in the Union.
  Now, this waste wouldn't just magically appear in Nevada. It would 
travel through many of your congressional districts--through backyards 
all across the country, near schools, homes, parks, and businesses--nor 
does this enormous cost figure account for the significant security 
expenditures required to protect the contents of Yucca Mountain from 
those seeking to cause our Nation harm.
  Mr. Chairman, if a nun with a pair of bolt cutters were able to break 
into one of the most secure nuclear facilities in the world, how can we 
ever expect to protect all of the Nation's waste in just one location?
  Let's not forget that Yucca Mountain is less than 100 miles from one 
of the

[[Page 11132]]

Nation's largest cities that hosts more than 40 million visitors a 
year.
  In January of 2012, the Department of Energy's bipartisan Blue Ribbon 
Commission on America's Nuclear Future, led by former Congressman and 
9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton and former National Security 
Advisor Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft stated in its final report: 
``The need for a new strategy is urgent.''
  The key concept here is ``new,'' but, instead, this bill tries to 
turn back the clock, back to an old, flawed strategy. It's Groundhog 
Day here in the United States House of Representatives.
  On the subject of Yucca, Congressman Hamilton stated: ``Nuclear waste 
storage at Yucca Mountain is not an option.''
  General Scowcroft said the Commission will ``look forward, not 
back.''
  It appears that that message didn't make it all the way up the steps 
of the Capitol and that some Members of Congress have not gotten the 
message that Yucca is dead.

                              {time}  0000

  We cannot continue to throw good money after bad ideas and go down 
the same failed path that Congress put us on when politics targeted the 
people of Nevada in the development of the Yucca Mountain project 
decades ago.
  Although I don't agree with everything that's included in the bill, I 
applaud the bipartisan group of Senators who have introduced 
legislation to enact the recommendations of the Commission and have an 
actual debate that doesn't target communities like Nevada.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. It's 
time to have a serious debate over the safe disposal of the Nation's 
nuclear waste and develop an alternative plan that doesn't throw away 
billions of taxpayer dollars, endanger citizen safety, or threaten 
economic development projects in southern Nevada.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The House has repeatedly had overwhelming votes in support of 
continuing the Yucca Mountain Repository. The language that this 
amendment would strike, we have been carrying for years as a way to 
keep the will of the House alive, and the American people support what 
we're doing.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 510.  The Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation 
     and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, at the time that the 
     President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 is submitted 
     pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
     a comprehensive report compiled in conjunction with the 
     Government Accountability Office that details updated 
     missions, goals, strategies, and priorities, and performance 
     metrics that are measurable, repeatable, and directly linked 
     to requests for funding.
       Sec. 511.  It is the sense of the Congress that the 
     Congress should not pass any legislation that authorizes 
     spending cuts that would increase poverty in the United 
     States.

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 512.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Aderholt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 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.

                          ____________________