[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11506-11531]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2015

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cassidy

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Louisiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about setting 
priorities. The Army Corps of Engineers construction account has a 
serious backlog of over $60 billion. According to a recent CRS report, 
there is a backlog of more than 1,000 authorized studies and 
construction projects.
  The President's budget inadequately addresses this backlog, only 
allocating $1.1 billion for these important infrastructure projects, a 
32 percent reduction over fiscal year 2014-enacted levels.
  Now, I applaud the committee for providing $48 million more for Corps 
construction over the 2014-enacted levels, but more needs to be done. 
This is especially prevalent with the recent passage of the bipartisan 
water resources conference report, which contained authorizations for 
existing projects, such as the Louisiana Coastal Area, and new 
projects, such as Morganza to the Gulf.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment transfers $5 million out of the Department 
of Energy's administrative account and moves that money into the Corps 
of Engineers construction budget. The goal is to move more projects 
forward, to reduce the backlog, and to open up the door for projects 
across the country vital to our Nation's waterways, our economy, and 
our ability to export.
  Louisiana, for example, contains 3 million acres of coastal wetlands. 
Louisiana's coast is home to over 2 million people, supporting vital 
ecosystems, national energy security, thousands of jobs, and a unique 
culture.
  As you may know, our coastal wetlands are rapidly disappearing. The 
U.S. Geological Survey estimates that if present land-loss trends 
continue, Louisiana will lose 2,400 square miles of land between 1932 
and 2050. That is an area about 25 times that of Washington, D.C.
  Morganza to the Gulf, which is one of five new projects authorized in 
WRRDA's hurricane and storm damage risk reduction subsection, is of 
immense importance to Louisiana's coastal restoration and protection 
efforts. The project's purpose is to protect the remaining fragile 
marsh and wetlands from hurricane storm surge. This is one of many 
projects around the country that needs funding and is vital to our 
Nation's infrastructure.
  Taxpayers wish to see this backlog cleared out and other projects 
important to our Nation's economy moved forward. That is what this 
amendment intends to help achieve.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I appreciate the gentleman's passion for coastal restoration. I know 
it is a high priority for his district, his State, and, in fact, for 
the country.
  The committee often hears complaints that projects take too long and 
cost too much to build, in large part attributed to inefficient 
funding. If that is true, then the only responsible way to allow for 
new starts is to finish understanding the impacts of the selected new 
starts on the Corps' future budget requirements and on the expected 
costs and timelines of ongoing projects. Unfortunately, we do not have 
that information, and the administration has shown no willingness to 
provide it.
  The fiscal year 2014 act allowed for a limited number of new 
construction starts, with the requirement that the administration 
provide information to show that these projects would be affordable at 
reasonable construction account levels and that these new projects 
would not unduly delay or increase the cost of ongoing projects.
  To say that the so-called analysis from the administration was 
inadequate would be an understatement. And no information at all was 
provided for the new start proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request.
  Additionally, the administration continues to propose budgets with 
significant cuts to the construction account, including a 32 percent 
cut for fiscal year 2015. In fact, several individual projects 
authorized in the recent WRRDA are each estimated to cost more than 
what the administration requested for the entire nationwide 
construction program. Clearly, as promising as some new projects may 
be, it would be fiscally irresponsible to initiate new projects with no 
information on the impact of doing so.
  I understand that some Members with authorized projects in their 
districts are anxious to get construction underway. I also understand, 
however, that many Members with projects already under construction in 
their districts want to see those projects completed and to start 
realizing the benefits of these Federal, State, and local investments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASSIDY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico

  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from New Mexico and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to amend the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill to increase the construction 
account by $15 million to ensure local governments like the city of Rio 
Rancho, the county of Bernalillo, and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 
District get reimbursed for work they have done in conjunction with the 
Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers works with local 
governments in New Mexico to construct levees, implement flood control 
measures, and other important infrastructure for the safety of the 
public.
  More specifically, the city of Rio Rancho entered into a 
reimbursement contract with the Army Corps of Engineers and has not 
been paid back for several years due to the lack of appropriations. The 
same goes for the county of Bernalillo, the Middle Rio Grande 
Conservancy District, and other communities across the United States.
  This delay in reimbursement has led to interruptions in financing for 
other city projects and also has the potential to hurt the credit 
rating of these entities if they do not recover these funds via 
reimbursement, as stated in their contracts with the Federal 
Government.
  By increasing the dollar amount in this account, which includes a 
number of programs and accounts that are critical to local 
governments--like engineering, construction, technical assistance, 
flood control, and environmental infrastructure--we can get these 
entities reimbursed and get these liabilities off the books of the Army 
Corps of Engineers to get other projects going.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this increase has zero 
impact on the budget and, in fact, would save money by reducing 
liability for the Federal Government.

[[Page 11507]]

  Mr. Chairman, local governments have been left holding an IOU from 
the Federal Government for doing work based on the good faith written 
agreements with the Army Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand there may be opposition from some of my 
colleagues, but I am hoping that I can persuade the chairman to support 
me in this effort.
  Under section 593 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, the 
city of Rio Rancho and other local governments entered into agreements 
with the Army Corps of Engineers. When city and local governments enter 
into reimbursement contracts, they expect to be reimbursed. They have 
annual budgets with the expectations they will get paid back. Congress 
should live up to these obligations in the authority given to the 
agency by Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the constraints that the subcommittee 
dealt with, with the allocations given to them. But we need to make 
sure that we are working to make these local governments whole with the 
agreements and contracts they have with the Federal Government.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  First, though, let me assure my colleague that I am sympathetic to 
the need for increased construction funding. In fact, the underlying 
bill increases construction funding by almost $50 million above fiscal 
year 2014 and by almost $600 million, or 52 percent above the budget 
request.
  While I understand there is always more that can be done, we could 
shift the entire expenses account to construction, and there still 
would be more that needs to be done.
  Although it may seem like an easy offset here on the floor, Members 
should recognize that a $50 million cut to the expenses account cannot 
be sustained in conference. Funding for the expenses account in the 
underlying bill already reflects a 2 percent reduction from fiscal year 
2014 and a 4 percent reduction from fiscal year 2012.
  For those reasons, I must oppose the amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a 
question either to the chairman or the ranking member:
  With local governments like this entering into agreements with the 
Army Corps of Engineers and doing work like this, is there something 
that could be done associated with trying to get an assessment of 
those, and maybe we can chip away at those reimbursements in a timely 
manner? Is that something that we might be able to work on?
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield to anyone who might be able to respond to 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, my question is:
  With local governments, like the ones in New Mexico and other parts 
of the United States, that have entered into agreements with the Army 
Corps of Engineers or others for reimbursement in a timely manner, is 
there a way that we might be able to chip away or work at this? I would 
be willing to withdraw the amendment if I could get an assurance that 
this is something that we can look at and work at.
  I have offered this amendment in years past. And, again, there are 
local governments across the United States that are waiting for 
reimbursement, and I think it is something that would be good for us to 
take a look at.
  I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I certainly understand the gentleman's concern, and I 
agree with him. It all comes down to funding levels.
  But I would be more than willing to work with the gentleman to try to 
see if we could address his concern, which is a concern for all of us, 
as we move forward into the conference process.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, would that be 
agreeable or amenable to the ranking member?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. The chairman and I work very closely on matters like 
this. It is difficult because of the fact that we have no new starts. 
We have a backlog that is enormous. And the Corps is under pressure. 
But we will be very happy to work with the gentleman and to try to 
resolve situations that you may face in your region.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff for their time and their 
effort and the courtesy of the chairman and the ranking member.
  I will not offer this amendment today and we will see if we might be 
able to work together, Mr. Chairman, and if not, we will come back next 
year and we will see what we can do. Maybe we will need to take a vote. 
But I appreciate everyone's courtesy today.
  Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline

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

       Page 3, line 17, before the semicolon, insert ``; of which 
     $44,000,000 shall be for environmental infrastructure 
     projects for financially distressed municipalities''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from Rhode Island and 
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the chairman and 
the ranking member for the hard work that they have done on this piece 
of legislation.
  My amendment is a simple one. As we all recognize, the Army Corps of 
Engineers provides invaluable assistance to financially strapped 
communities through its general construction fund, specifically for 
wastewater and water improvements and, in past years, has allocated 
specifically funds for this purpose. However, this year's report does 
not include any money for this account.
  So the amendment I offer would direct that $44 million, which is 3 
percent of the total allocation for construction projects in the Army 
Corps of Engineers, be set aside to support environmental 
infrastructure programs specifically for financially distressed 
communities around the country.

                              {time}  1445

  As we know, Mr. Chairman, there are approximately $298 billion of 
unmet needs for wastewater and stormwater treatment that are projected 
over the next 20 years. Of that, about 15 to 20 percent represents 
water treatment, and that percentage is expected to grow over time 
because of increases in Federal regulations.
  In older cities, a single system, in fact, combines both stormwater 
and sewage; and rain, obviously, and snow can overwhelm those systems 
and present tremendous challenges.
  Seventy-two percent of the United States population is served by 
sewage treatment plants, and 3.8 million Americans are served by 
facilities providing less than secondary treatment, which is the basic 
requirement of law.
  This is a huge unmet need, and for municipalities--particularly 
financially distressed municipalities--investing in water treatment 
facilities can be a tremendous burden that they can't meet alone.
  In fact, since 2007, the Federal Government has required cities to 
invest more than $15 billion in new pipes, plants, and equipment to 
address sewer and wastewater treatment.
  So we are imposing--and rightly so, I am not criticizing that--but we 
are imposing these standards, and the costs of

[[Page 11508]]

those are being borne by municipalities.
  What this amendment attempts to do is to ensure that at least some 
portion of that account is set aside for wastewater treatment projects 
and particularly targets facilities that have financial challenges--
financially distressed communities.
  I have spoken with the ranking member, and I recognize the chairman 
has reserved a point of order. I would ask if my ranking member would 
continue to make the case that these wastewater treatment facilities 
require some additional investment, and if that is the case, I look 
forward to working with the chairman and my ranking member, so that we 
can be sure that this investment is preserved, as it has been in past 
years, so that communities that really need assistance with their 
wastewater treatment facilities will have some access to these 
resources, and if so, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I offered an Amendment to the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Bill that would support environmental infrastructure 
projects through the Army Corps of Engineers for financially distressed 
municipalities.
  We require, quite rightly, water and sewage treatment plants to 
maintain federally mandated standards to keep our water supply safe and 
sustainable. About 72% of the population is served by sewage treatment 
plants, but 3.8 million of those people are served by facilities 
providing less than secondary treatment, which is a basic requirement 
by federal law. Often, the financial burden to meet these requirements 
falls on state and local governments. This can leave communities 
experiencing particular financial distress with outdated infrastructure 
and facing down huge costs to bring them in line with requirements. And 
this affects all of us, as aging wastewater management systems 
discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface 
waters each year.
  The Army Corps of Engineers can provide invaluable assistance to 
financially strapped communities through its general construction fund, 
specifically for wastewater and water improvements.
  The amendment I introduced would direct $44 million through the 
general construction account to support environmental infrastructure 
programs for financially distressed municipalities, in the hopes that 
we can provide some support for some of the most pressing wastewater 
improvement projects in the country.
  This same amount has been included for environmental infrastructure 
programs in the past, but no funding is included in this year's bill.
  Federal assistance has not kept pace with the needs of wastewater 
treatment systems, despite the fact that authorities agree that funding 
needs remain very high: The EPA estimates that the country will need to 
invest $390 billion over the next 20 years to replace existing systems 
and build new ones to meet demand. Furthermore, they estimate that 
there will be a $6 billion gap between current spending projections and 
need, if no changes are made.
  These infrastructure projects are extremely important to many 
communities across the country, including in my own state of Rhode 
Island. Though I withdrew my amendment, I look forward to working with 
the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee to ensure that these vulnerable communities receive 
support to ensure that Americans across the country have access to 
clean, safe water and sewage systems.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CICILLINE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. There is no objection from our side. We look forward to 
working with the gentleman.
  In your region of the country, the Midwest, the Great Lakes, and the 
Northeast, in particular, those needs are huge.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   mississippi river and tributaries

       For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects 
     and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley 
     below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, 
     $260,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of 
     eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors 
     shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McAllister

  Mr. McALLISTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 4, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $47,000,000)''.
       Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $127,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Louisiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. McALLISTER. Mr. Chairman, first, let me just say to Chairman 
Simpson that I appreciate all the hard work you all have done on this 
whole committee bill and appropriation process.
  I know it is not an easy task, and there is a lot of juggling to 
offset prices on everything, but my amendment will increase the MR&T, 
the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, by $47 million, to bring 
it back to FY14 levels. The FY14 enacted $307 million, and FY15 
committee was $260 million.
  The offset for this is reducing the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy by $127 million. This number is necessary to make it 
outlay neutral. This is less than 7 percent of the proposed spending by 
the committee. Budget authority will be reduced by $80 million.
  The Mississippi River and tributaries are the main arteries of 
commerce for the Nation--as we see in the reports today, that we have 
flooding going on in the Mississippi River, starting from the north up 
above St. Louis, coming down.
  This MR&T project is the largest flood control project in the world, 
providing protection for the 36,000-square mile lower Mississippi 
valley acreage.
  The navigation features of the MR&T project seek to facilitate 
navigation and promote commerce on the Nation's most vital commercial 
artery. Waterborne commerce on the Mississippi River increased from 30 
million tons in 1940 to nearly 500 million tons today.
  Since the initiation of the MR&T project in 1928, the Nation has 
received a $24 return for every dollar invested. The remaining work to 
be completed will have an estimated 37 to 1 return on investment.
  With the Panama Canal expansion project underway, we must continue to 
invest in this vital resource, not reduce funding. These waterways are 
too important to our Nation.
  I just want to say how important the Mississippi River is to the 
Nation as a whole, not just to my district and those of us that border 
the Mississippi River and their tributaries all up and down the central 
United States.
  It is very vital to the agriculture industry, to the commerce 
industry, to everything, and the flood control. It just has a 
tremendous impact that we all need to be aware of. I know that this 
$127 million looks like a lot in the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, but we try to find different places that we can take 
it.
  This is one that we found the less neutral, only reducing it 7 
percent of its total budget. It was the largest that we found that we 
could take it from.
  Again, I just want to commend the committee on the hard work they 
have done, and I know it is not an easy challenge at all for them to 
reduce and have to answer to certain parties for what was reduced and 
not reduced.
  We have worked on this bipartisan--got a lot of bipartisan support on 
it throughout yesterday and today, and I appreciate your consideration 
and support on trying to make sure that we do everything we can to take 
care of the MR&T.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Let me 
assure my colleague, though, that I agree with him about the importance 
of making investments in navigation and flood control infrastructure.

[[Page 11509]]

  In fact, a lot of the problem was trying to find an offset for $47 
million, and as the gentleman knows, it is very difficult because there 
are things in this bill that are very important to at least someone 
within this body.
  Because of the importance of navigation and flood control, that is 
why the underlying bill increases funding for MR&T by 6 percent above 
the President's budget request and focuses funding, such that 
navigation is increased by 21 percent and flood control by 15 percent 
above the budget request.
  While I understand that there is almost always more that can be done, 
we must balance several competing activities within the Energy and 
Water bill. The amendment would reduce the EERE account, which is 
already cut by $113 million below last year's level and $528 million 
below the President's budget request.
  So while we did increase funding for the MR&T account above the 
President's request, the EERE account is already $528 million below the 
budget's request by the administration. Within the EERE account, the 
funding the bill preserves is just as important as the funding it cuts.
  The bill focuses funding for three main priorities: helping American 
manufacturers remain competitive, supporting weatherization assistance 
programs, and addressing future high gas prices.
  This funding supports breakthrough research to reduce what Americans 
pay at the gas pump and to help our companies compete in the global 
market, which creates jobs here at home.
  For these reasons, while I sympathize with what the gentleman is 
trying to do with the amendment and tried to help on crafting an 
amendment that we can find $47 million for, I must oppose the amendment 
and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McALLISTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McAllister).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Crawford

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

       Page 4, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $18,800,000) (increased by $9,500,000) (increased by 
     $9,300,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Arkansas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the chairman and 
the committee for their hard work putting this bill together. I know it 
has taken a lot of time and effort to get here, and I appreciate that.
  My amendment addresses a very real threat to the lives and 
livelihoods of Arkansans and Americans across the country and the 
citizens and businesses in areas of the depletion of aquifers and lack 
of water for agriculture during times of drought.
  The Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie projects in my district, which are 
well on the way to completion, will provide an economical and 
environmentally sensible alternative for protecting aquifers from 
catastrophic depletion and provide both a renewable agriculture water 
supply, as well as a valuable role in water quality and quantity 
control efforts for one of our Nation's most critical waterways, the 
Mississippi River.
  In most of the Mississippi Delta, aquifers provide significant 
portions of water used for ag irrigation. With the increasing water 
demands of agriculture, businesses, and municipalities, aquifers across 
the country, especially the alluvial and Sparta-Memphis aquifers which 
supply much of the Mississippi Delta, face the increasing threat of 
depletion.
  This takes the immediate form of drastically lowering well yields and 
the requirement to drill more often and deeper to access sufficient 
quantities of water.
  Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie were designed to address the threat of 
aquifer depletion, both to ease demands on aquifers and to ensure a 
steady and renewable water supply for agriculture in Arkansas' 
Mississippi Delta region.
  First authorized in 1996, these projects are a framework of canals, 
pumps, and pipes that pull excess water from the delta's rivers in 
times of abundance and store it for future use.
  During periods of drought, farmers are able to take from those canals 
and reservoirs, instead of further depleting the aquifers or taking 
from the rivers and streams that feed the Mississippi, helping ensure a 
continued and reliable water supply, both for agriculture and 
municipalities.
  In addition to the ag benefits, Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie will 
work to ease demands on the water table, help mitigate the flood damage 
done to homes and businesses, ensure a safe and steady food and water 
supply for American citizens, and provide a habitat for various 
amphibians and waterfowl across the South.
  Most importantly, Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie will support jobs for 
a region of our country persistently above the national unemployment 
rate.
  Without these two important projects, Mississippi Delta farmers will 
be forced to continue depleting aquifers, the same aquifers 
municipalities and businesses depend on, risking losing their 
livelihood.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition, although I am hopeful that my 
colleague will withdraw the amendment.
  First, let me assure the gentleman that I am sympathetic to the 
issues that he has highlighted in his statement.
  Adequate water supply, whether it is for agricultural irrigation or 
municipal or industrial use, is a basic necessity for economic 
prosperity. In the committee's view, however, navigation and flood 
control are top priorities for the Corps of Engineers, and the bill 
before us prioritizes funding accordingly.
  My colleague from Arkansas has proven to be a strong advocate for his 
constituents and for the projects that seek to further develop the 
agricultural irrigation infrastructure important to his constituents.
  If the gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment, I will agree 
to work with him, moving forward, to try to address these needs, if 
additional funding beyond that necessary for navigation and flood 
control becomes available.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman for his commitment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       operation and maintenance

       For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
     care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
     reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related 
     projects authorized by law; providing security for 
     infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including 
     administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor 
     channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public 
     agency that serve essential navigation needs of general 
     commerce, where authorized by law; surveying and charting 
     northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 
     clearing and straightening channels; and removing 
     obstructions to navigation, $2,905,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and 
     maintenance

[[Page 11510]]

     costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for inland 
     harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund; of which such sums as become available from the special 
     account for the Corps of Engineers established by the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived from 
     that account for resource protection, research, 
     interpretation, and maintenance activities related to 
     resource protection in the areas at which outdoor recreation 
     is available; and of which such sums as become available from 
     fees collected under section 217 of Public Law 104-303 shall 
     be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the 
     dredged material disposal facilities for which such fees have 
     been collected: Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount 
     of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or 
     activities funded under this heading shall not be allocated 
     to a field operating activity prior to the beginning of the 
     fourth quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for 
     use by the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency 
     activities as the Chief of Engineers determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers 
     shall allocate during the fourth quarter any remaining funds 
     which have not been used for emergency activities 
     proportionally in accordance with the amounts provided for 
     the programs, projects, or activities.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn

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

       Page 4, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $57,600,000)''.
       Page 20, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $73,309,100.00)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself however much time I may 
consume.
  I rise to offer the Hahn-Huizenga amendment to the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill to utilize the harbor maintenance trust fund as the 
target set forth in the recently passed Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act.
  As a representative of the Nation's busiest port complex and the 
cofounder, along with you, Mr. Chairman, of the Ports Caucus, I have 
fought hard, from my first day here in Congress, to increase the 
funding for our Nation's ports and to fully utilize the harbor 
maintenance trust fund to ensure that the money that we collect at our 
ports goes back to our ports. Around here, they are starting to call me 
``Miss Harbor Maintenance Tax.''
  After working for months with my colleagues, we reached a plan to 
finally put the harbor maintenance trust fund to work and fully utilize 
this trust fund by 2025.
  I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member and the hard work 
that you put on the bill before us today, but I have one little problem 
with it. The bill on the floor today fails to follow the law that we 
just passed 7 weeks ago in such a bipartisan fashion, and we are 
falling behind by over $57 million towards utilizing that harbor 
maintenance fund.
  That is money that our ports have paid for and they need. I 
understand the difficult task the Appropriations Committee has in front 
of it, but for our ports to remain competitive, they need this funding.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but let me 
assure my colleagues that I agree with her about the importance of 
sufficient maintenance of our Nation's water resources infrastructure, 
including our waterways. It seems like the amendments that Members are 
offering, I agree with them; however, there are challenges that they 
face.
  I also agree that since the harbor maintenance tax is collected for a 
specific purpose and since the need for dredging is apparent, we should 
be using these funds for their intended purpose to the greatest extent 
possible rather than allowing a balance to accumulate in the trust 
fund. That is an issue we have been dealing with for the last several 
years, trying to figure out how we can do that without harming all of 
the other programs within the budget. Unfortunately, that is what they 
do. Until we change our budget rules or something, and I don't have the 
answer to it yet, but we have been trying to work with the Budget 
Committee and with the Appropriations Committee to try to make sure 
that those taxes collected for the harbor maintenance trust fund are 
used for what they are intended to do. And if the account is just 
growing, then we shouldn't be collecting the tax.
  Ms. HAHN. That sounds like support for my amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I know that is what it sounds like. In fact, the bill 
continues to increase funding for harbor maintenance trust fund 
activities above the previous year and above the budget request, as the 
committee has repeatedly done over the past few years. The bill 
includes more than $1.1 billion for these activities, which equates to 
more than a 20 percent increase over the amount requested by the 
administration for fiscal year 2015. While I understand that there is 
almost always more work that can be done, we must balance several 
competing activities within the Energy and Water bill.
  The amendment would reduce the nuclear energy account by $12.8 
million, which would bring the account below the fiscal year 2014 
level. The underlying bill provides a total of $899 million for nuclear 
energy programs, only $10 million above last year. That is what seems 
strange about this, doing what we all think is the right thing to do 
using the harbor maintenance trust fund to do harbor maintenance. By 
increasing that, we hurt nuclear energy, which I don't think is the 
intent of the gentlelady or the gentleman from Louisiana who want to do 
this.
  In addition to protecting the Department of Energy's nuclear energy 
materials, this funding protects a range of national security programs 
at the NNSA, Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal 
agencies. Furthermore, I oppose the reduced funding for nuclear energy 
research and development, which is a critical part of this bill's 
support for a balanced energy portfolio. Nuclear power currently 
generates 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, and it will continue 
to play a large role in the future.
  As I said, I am sympathetic to what the gentlelady is trying to do. 
In fact, I was cosponsor at one time of a bill by my friend from 
Louisiana that said you have to use the harbor maintenance trust fund 
and use it to dredge the harbors. If there is a need out there, we 
ought to be using that to do it.
  We need to work together to try to solve this problem. And believe 
me, it would help us a lot in crafting this bill if somehow we could do 
that. Otherwise, we shouldn't be collecting the tax if we have a need 
and the account is growing. But it is because of our budget rules and 
so forth that it creates this problem. I understand what the gentlelady 
is doing. Unfortunately, her amendment would hurt the nuclear account 
and other accounts within the bill which has been the problem in the 
past.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman for yielding and for your sympathy 
toward the intent of the amendment. I commend Congresswoman Hahn and 
Congressman Huizenga for elevating the question of our ports. 
Waterborne shipping is the most-efficient mode for moving goods in and 
out of this country. I think they are performing for this Congress an 
extraordinary service by uniting on a bipartisan basis and kind of 
ringing the bell and saying, Hey, pay attention to what is happening 
here with this harbor maintenance tax and how we help our ports 
compete, as we see the Panama Canal come online and shipbuilding 
occurring in other countries like South Korea, for example, and China 
and Singapore and lots of other places, and saying, Hey, America, wake 
up.
  I feel some urgency to want to support the direction of their 
efforts, but, as with the chairman, it comes to

[[Page 11511]]

where the offset is. It is true that, with harbor maintenance tax 
funds, $185 million has been moved into the fund as a result of our 
efforts that the administration had not requested, so we as a 
subcommittee are moving in the right direction, but I am hoping that 
this might begin a conversation with our subcommittee and how we work 
with them on the harbor maintenance tax in a more effective manner. So 
I thank the chairman for yielding. They brought an important issue 
before us that we need to resolve more effectively.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank my colleague from California for 
working with me on this. I am glad to hear the elevation that this 
issue is getting. In fact, on Monday I met with Andrie Shipping out of 
Muskegon, Michigan, in my district about this issue, among other issues 
regarding Great Lakes shipping.
  I can tell you, though, that it seems to me as we passed the WRRDA 
bill just a short 7 weeks ago, as you pointed out, I was willing to 
compromise on that glide path. What I don't see currently is that glide 
path to the direction. We are, as you point out, nearly $58 million 
below what was laid out in that WRRDA bill.
  The chairman from Idaho has a very difficult job balancing all this, 
and he has pointed out that the nuclear energy program is the way that 
we are going to offset this. I will point out, though, that it is 
appropriated for $899 million this year, a level that is $36 million 
above the President's budget request, $10 million above the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level, and $243 million above the level proposed by the 
House Appropriations Committee for fiscal year 2014. So it doesn't seem 
to me we are exactly raiding that when everybody has said that we are 
overfunding that portion of the bill, and it seems to me that this is a 
great way of impacting our economy to help create jobs and to help 
create the momentum to continue to move forward.
  So with that, I just want to thank the committee for working towards 
a solution. I know that I, too, had signed on to Mr. Boustany's bill 
earlier and have been a champion of this, and we are working towards a 
true solution on this.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and this critical 
maritime activity.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I stand to speak in favor of 
the Hahn amendment. I would like to commend the Appropriations 
Committee's efforts to increase the Army Corps of Engineers' budget.
  In Texas, we have serious water and infrastructure needs. At the Port 
of Houston, which I represent, our need for operation and maintenance 
as well as construction money is significant. I greatly appreciate the 
committee's efforts to fund our needs by appropriating $31 million, but 
this amount does not reflect the amount that is needed. The Port of 
Houston is the second-largest port in the country by tonnage. The Port 
of Houston ranks number one in foreign tonnage. In 2012, we expanded 
operations to include cruise ships.
  For maintenance dredging operations alone, the Port of Houston 
requires more than $70 million annually. The Port of Houston generates 
significant tax revenue both for the State and Federal Government. That 
is why I am a strong supporter of the Hahn amendment.
  To meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, the 
Port of Houston needs more than $31 million from the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund.
  The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) required that 
67 percent of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund fees be spent on related 
activities.
  Unfortunately, this bill short changes the Port of Houston and many 
other ports around the country.
  I support the Hahn amendment.
  The funding shortfall significantly impacts the ability of the Port 
of Houston to receive larger ships and it is our job to help them meet 
those demands.
  I ask that my colleagues support the Hahn amendment.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hahn-
Huizenga amendment which would increase funding for the United States 
Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance account by $57 
million, a funding level that was established in the House-passed WRRDA 
bill. This funding is fully offset and is bipartisan in nature.
  I am here today to support additional funding because my district--
Michigan's First--urgently needs to address the backlog of projects on 
the book, from dredging to basic port maintenance to the Soo Locks, 
which are in desperate need of replacement. The backlog impacts jobs 
and our local economy in Northern Michigan.
  I understand tough decisions must be made during these economic 
times, but Michiganders and all Americans depend on the Great Lakes for 
transportation of goods and services. I appreciate consideration of 
this amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Huizenga-Hahn Amendment, 
which would increase funding for the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers Operations and Maintenance account by $57.6 million, a 
funding level that was established in the House-passed WRRDA bill. This 
funding is fully offset, and is bipartisan in nature.
  I am here today to support additional funding for the Army Corps O&M 
budget because my district--Michigan's First--is in urgent need of 
funding to address the backlog of projects on the books. From dredging 
to basic port maintenance, to the Soo Locks the needs in Northern 
Michigan are only getting worse. This backlog impacts jobs and our 
local economy. While $57 million will certainly not suffice to meet the 
backlog on the Great Lakes, nor even begin to address a number of the 
other already authorized projects around the country, this represents a 
small step forward.
  What types of projects are we talking about? In my district, we have 
the Soo Locks. The Soo Locks represent the primary point of passage for 
goods in the Great Lakes. Products travel on ships from all around the 
world through the Soo Locks, which are in desperate need of 
replacement. This is truly a national security issue, and the estimated 
cost for replacement is approximately $580 million.
  The inability to replace the Soo Locks leads has lead to light-
loading and collisions at the entry point, which also increases annual 
maintenance costs. This is costly to taxpayers and the shipping 
industry, ultimately leading to higher costs for Northern Michiganders 
and all Americans who utilize goods that are transported through the 
Great Lakes.
  The work done by the Army Corps impacts the economy and jobs not only 
in Northern Michigan, but around the world. Commodities transported on 
the Great Lakes Navigation System represent 10 percent of all U.S. 
waterborne domestic traffic. The 60 large and smaller federal 
commercial ports on the Great Lakes are linked in trade with each 
other, with Canadian ports, and with ports throughout the rest of the 
world.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that tough decisions must be made during 
these economic times. However, Michiganders and all Americans depend on 
the Great Lakes for the transportation of goods and services.
  I thank you for your consideration, as this amendment would work to 
support projects not only in my district, but across the country.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The 
Great Lakes are operating at 80 percent of capacity. It is costing us 
$3 billion in annual business, jobs, growth, and income. The Hahn-
Huizenga amendment would restore these funds and move our country 
forward economically.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. 
When our ports are strong, our country is strong.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the bipartisan 
amendment offered by my colleague Ms. Hahn from California and Mr. 
Huizenga of Michigan, which would increase the appropriation provided 
in the underlying bill for Army Corps operations and

[[Page 11512]]

maintenance dredging of harbors by $57.6 million. This amendment would 
fulfill the obligations made in the recently-enacted Water Resources 
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121), an important one of 
them being the increase in expenditure of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund as a way to adequately address maintenance needs at our nation's 
ports and harbors.
  Specifically, I support adoption of this amendment because it would 
position the Army Corps to be more responsive to the maintenance needs 
at Puerto Rico's six federally-authorized harbors, which are located in 
Arecibo, Fajardo, Mayaguez, Ponce, San Juan and Yabucoa. Through these 
harbors, Puerto Rico engages in domestic trade with U.S. states and 
territories and international trade with foreign countries. In 2012, 
the San Juan and Ponce harbors alone accounted for over 13 million tons 
in trade of commodities, making them some of the busiest ports in the 
United States. Access to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain 
these harbors at their federally-authorized depth levels is crucial to 
the expanding $103 billion trade industry in Puerto Rico. Maintenance 
and development of the harbors is essential to Puerto Rico's waterborne 
economy and its ultimate its viability as a commercial maritime 
waypoint hub between North and South America.
  Additionally, I take this opportunity to note that the underlying 
bill includes an appropriation of $800,000 specifically for maintenance 
dredging of the harbor in San Juan--which ranked as the 52nd busiest 
port in the nation in 2012 in terms of tonnage of total cargo handled. 
I also appreciate the Committee's expressed concern in its report 
accompanying the bill about the accessibility of navigation maintenance 
funds for small, remote and subsistence harbors and waterways across 
the United States. I believe the Army Corps should review its criteria 
for allocating harbor maintenance funds in order to develop a more 
reasonable and equitable allocation for small, remote or subsistence 
harbors. The current criteria results in those ports with the heaviest 
cargo traffic being allocated funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund. The criteria presents a paradoxical situation in that harbors 
that are not maintained to their federally-authorized depth become less 
available and less attractive over time to the berthing of maritime 
vessels. As a consequence, the diminishing number of port calls reduces 
cargo volume, which in turn makes the harbor less likely to receive 
maintenance funding. If the overall Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
allocation criteria are not realigned to better account for maintenance 
needs at smaller harbors, designing a separate budgeting mechanism or 
criteria to address these needs would be warranted.
  In Puerto Rico, for example, although the San Juan Harbor has been 
given regular maintenance attention in recent years and the harbor in 
Arecibo recently received maintenance dredging as a result of sediment 
buildup associated with a hurricane, the island's four other federally-
authorized harbors have received minimal to no HMTF funds for much-
needed maintenance dredging. Potential improvements to these harbors 
would be beneficial to the economic revitalization of some of Puerto 
Rico's 44 coastal municipalities. For these reasons, I support the 
renewed call for the Army Corps to update Congress on its review of 
criteria used for determining which navigation projects at harbors 
across the United States are funded.
  In closing, I urge adoption of this amendment. It is through 
increased expenditure in 2015 by the Army Corps of Engineers of funds 
available through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that the domestic 
economy will be strengthened, and that our constituents who rely upon 
the free, timely and safe flow of goods at our nation's ports will be 
supported. This amendment gives us an opportunity to better ensure 
operations at the nation's federally-authorized harbors--including the 
harbors in Puerto Rico--can reach their full capacity.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. 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 California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cassidy

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

       Page 4, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Louisiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the President's 2015 budget 
request cuts O&M funding by 28 percent, reflecting an overall $1 
billion cut in the Corps of Engineers' civil works budget from the 
levels set in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus budget bill.
  While I appreciate the House Appropriations' mark of $44 million 
above the fiscal year 2014 level, more must be done to help ensure our 
waterways are properly maintained.
  This is especially true with the Water Resources conference report, 
which allows for 100 percent of the funds generated by the cargo tax to 
be utilized for harbor maintenance and dredging by the year 2025. We 
need to help bridge this gap now, as nearly 1,000 Federal ports and 
harbors have not been adequately maintained, and are dredged to their 
authorized depths and widths only 35 percent of the time.
  The amendment myself and my colleague from Louisiana are coauthoring 
directs $1 million from the Department of Energy's administrative 
offices and directs $1 million to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
operation and maintenance accounts.
  The purpose of the funding redirection is to make strategic and 
justified investments in our Nation's port and waterway infrastructure, 
such as the Calcasieu Ship Channel. For example, Port of Lake Charles 
officials announced yesterday that vessel traffic is expected to 
increase by more than 50 percent over the next 5 years and double 
within the decade. With more than $67 billion worth of capital 
investments in southwest Louisiana, the increased channel use is 
attributed to expanded operations of existing terminals and the 
construction of several proposed facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to work to provide the resources to maintain 
and dredge these vital navigation and shipping channels.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to compliment Chairman 
Simpson on all the work he has done on this bill, but also the work he 
has done with me to plus up the harbor maintenance account and the 
funds available for dredging. It is critically important.
  I am very proud to stand with my colleague from Louisiana in support 
of this very important amendment. As my colleague expressed, the 
President's fiscal year '15 budget creates even more of a shortfall.
  We have got a significant backlog in harbor maintenance. This is 
going to hurt American competitiveness. In fact, roughly $3 billion 
worth of coastal navigation operations and maintenance work could be 
done if the funds that are collected for this were actually made 
available to be used for it.
  Louisiana is a leading State in trade, international trade, with 
three of our top ten ports that conduct trade in goods and energy.
  More U.S. merchandise travels by ocean-going vessels than by 
airplanes, trucks, freight trains, and pipelines combined. That is why 
these funds are critical for American competitiveness, and that is why 
they are really important in facilitating U.S. foreign trade.
  Our waterways are vital economic pathways for our Nation's commerce 
and the ability to move American goods to these foreign markets. 
Hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on this--jobs in Louisiana and 
across the United States. This infrastructure is vital.
  Our amendment would take a modest step. It would redirect $1 million 
from the Department of Energy's administrative offices to the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance account. I believe this 
was a simple, strategic, and commonsense approach to help prioritize 
necessary maintenance and move us in the right direction.

[[Page 11513]]

  The Federal Government has the principal responsibility for 
maintenance of these harbors and shipping channels. Let's make sure 
that the Corps has the tools to do the job with the money that is 
collected for that job. The President failed to do that in his budget 
request. We can make that change now.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. CASSIDY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lankford

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

       Page 4, line 25, after ``expended,'' insert ``of which such 
     sums as are necessary to carry out the study authorized in 
     section 6002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014;''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chair, earlier this year, there was a bill that 
authorized the Corps' projects that was passed in the House and the 
Senate and signed into law. It also included into that a study that 
would allow the Corps of Engineers to be able to evaluate their 
projects.
  As simple as this may be, the Corps of Engineers has a tremendous 
number of things on their inventory that they are doing operation and 
maintenance for. The study required them to be able to go through all 
the different projects that they have nationwide and just do a simple 
evaluation of which projects met the simple focus of the Corps of 
Engineers and which projects might not meet the central focus. It 
allowed them to be able to make a simple determination of what, if you 
will excuse the pun, are the core projects of the Corps.
  There are projects that are all over the country. There may be boat 
ramps, picnic pavilions, or in Oklahoma we have a place called Lake 
Optima that was a lake built in the 1970s that has never had more than 
5 percent water in it. It was a project that did not work effectively 
as it was originally planned but the Corps still has to maintain 
because it is on their inventory.
  This study would allow them to be able to look at all of their 
inventory and develop what is the core focus of that. This amendment 
just ensures that the Corps would have the money necessary to be able 
to fulfill that study.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           regulatory program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

       For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites 
     in the United States resulting from work performed as part of 
     the Nation's early atomic energy program, $100,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and 
     other natural disasters and support emergency operations, 
     repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters 
     as authorized by law, $28,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                                expenses

       For expenses necessary for the supervision and general 
     administration of the civil works program in the headquarters 
     of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division 
     Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the 
     Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for 
     Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and 
     Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of 
     Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works 
     program, $178,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2016, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation purposes and only 
     during the current fiscal year: Provided, That no part of any 
     other appropriation provided in this title shall be available 
     to fund the civil works activities of the Office of the Chief 
     of Engineers or the civil works executive direction and 
     management activities of the division offices: Provided 
     further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 
     appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general 
     administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other 
     activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other 
     natural disaster.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       Page 7, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a simple amendment to 
save precious taxpayer resources and to reduce the amount of money 
spent on paying inefficient bureaucrats with a history of mismanagement 
and disorganization.
  Specifically, my amendment reduces net outlays for the administration 
of the Army Corps of Engineers by $1 million from the fiscal year 2014 
level, which reduces the budget authority in this bill for the Corps' 
administration by 2.25 percent. The Corps of Engineers received an 
overall increase of $25 million in the bill above the fiscal year 2014 
level.
  While I can support more funds going to worthwhile projects, I take 
issue when the Corps continually receives the budget request level for 
administrative officials who fail to curb their bad behavior and 
competently perform their jobs.
  I would like to read a quick excerpt from the committee report for 
this bill that highlights some of the continued mismanagement from 
within the Corps of Engineers:

       The Corps of Engineers has suffered several significant 
     failings in recent years that have resulted in cost increases 
     for projects, such as the massive cost escalation associated 
     with the Olmsted Locks and Dam project.
       In some cases, the administration has not requested 
     authorization increases in time for the Congress to act 
     before projects experience delays.
       The committee enacted new requirements in fiscal year 2014 
     intended to address these problems, but to date--5 months 
     after enactment--the Corps has not complied with the 
     committee's directions.
       In addition, the committee notes that the Corps still has 
     not submitted a complete work plan for fiscal year 2014 nor 
     complied with several other oversight initiatives necessary 
     to safeguard taxpayer dollars.

  Another blatant example of the administrative ineptitude within the 
Corps is the agency has now been working on one chief's report for a 
particular project in Arizona for 5-plus years now. Throughout the 
country, this is the norm and not the exception to the rule. This 
failure to perform even the most simple of tasks drives up the costs of 
projects and leads to projects not being completed in a timely manner.
  Due to frustrations with these delays, Congress was forced to enact a 
provision that recently passed WRRDA that requires Chiefs' reports to 
be completed within 3 years.
  Let me provide another example of mismanagement by the Corps in 
Arizona.
  An important flood control project was initially estimated by the 
Corps to cost roughly $24 million. Now, several years past the deadline 
for completing this project, the total cost estimate for the project 
exceeds more than $100 million. I realize projects have issues 
sometimes, but this is a clear example of failed leadership within the 
agency. Unfortunately, mismanagement has become prevalent in the Corps 
for quite some time now. Several years ago, former Senate Majority 
Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat from South Dakota, said the Corps is 
``one of the most incompetent and inept organizations in all the 
Federal Government.''

[[Page 11514]]

  One final example of significant malfunction within the Corps' 
administration was cited by the Government Accountability Office. The 
GAO had nothing but negative things to say about a Corps study 
justifying a $332 million project in the Delaware River. GAO found that 
the study ``was based on miscalculations, invalid assumptions, and 
outdated information.'' GAO found that projected benefits for this 
project were nearly 75 percent fraudulent.
  With an almost $18 trillion debt that continues to grow, it is 
irresponsible to throw more money at a department that cannot manage 
its own affairs. My amendment does not reduce funding for important 
projects. Again, my amendment simply reduces net outlays for 
incompetent Corps of Engineers bureaucrats from the fiscal year 2014 
level.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on 
the committee.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise to oppose the amendment 
because it doesn't make any sense to me to make it harder for the Corps 
to do its job when we know they have backlogs in projects of over $60 
billion. We are increasing funding for the Corps to try to meet the 
needs of States like Arizona--and the other 49 States as well--and 
there seems to be no shortage of complaints about the Corps' response 
time on project issues because they can't get their work done because 
they don't have enough money to complete their projects.
  This gentleman may be unaware that oversight funding has already been 
cut by $4 million from the current year. We are giving the Corps more 
project money to try to deal with their backlog; but then if we don't 
have proper oversight, we are going to dig the hole deeper. We need to 
have the resources in order to complete the projects.
  The amendment, in a way, is penny-wise and pound-foolish because it 
reduces Federal oversight of more than $5 billion. The problem with the 
Corps historically has been that every Member has projects that they 
want completed, but we don't have the money to do it. If you are going 
to cut the legs out of staff that are there to do the job, it is going 
to make it much more difficult to manage the money. It is like trying 
to send an army into battle and not giving them the weapons to do it or 
creating all these barriers to completion.
  We need to turn around and allow the Corps to resolve the projects 
that are on the books--there are no new starts in this bill--and give 
them the staff to do the job and to get it done and to get it done well 
and within budget, not stretch it out. The reason these projects are 
stretched out over the years: they simply don't have the money. To put 
the infrastructure in the ground, whether it is Arizona, Ohio, or 
California, they are just shortchanged at every end. We make it really 
difficult for them.
  I think the gentleman is well-intended. He wants to get the work 
done. I want to get the work done. I don't think that the amendment 
actually leads us to that end. Respectfully, we would oppose the 
amendment and ask our colleagues to join us.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

     office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works

       For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), 
     $2,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Bilirakis

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

       Page 7, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     to $0)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to ask my colleagues to 
support increased accountability of the Army Corps of Engineers.
  I thank, of course, Chairman Rogers and Chairman Simpson for their 
work on this appropriations bill and leadership to ensure scarce 
taxpayer dollars are well spent.
  My amendment seeks to strike all funding for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
  Under current law, fringe groups are allowed to, for the cost of a 
postage stamp, Mr. Chair, file lawsuits against any infrastructure 
project needing a clean water permit that they spot in the Federal 
Register. This is outrageous. These lawsuits and the fear of them have 
stopped a number of worthy projects that were necessary for local 
governments to protect their constituents.
  The Corps' failure to defend the public safety is because of a 
serious lack of leadership by the Corps, in my opinion. One such 
project in Pasco County, Florida, my Congressional District, is the 
Ridge Road extension, a much-needed route for hurricane evacuation.

                              {time}  1530

  For over two decades, this project has been in the permitting process 
because of the bureaucratic paper shuffling and duplicative 
environmental studies. During this time of scarce taxpayer dollars and 
economic uncertainty, we have pending infrastructure projects that can 
create jobs and protect the public, but the Corps often drags out the 
application process to push the applicant to drop their application out 
of fear that the agency will have to engage in litigation. These 
lawsuits are solely to kill worthy public safety projects, in my 
opinion, and not based on the merits of the projects.
  I note this bill's committee report, which says that, ``the committee 
is concerned that the administration has not been taking congressional 
direction seriously,'' in regards to these permit projects.
  There is clearly a serious leadership problem at this agency. This is 
an opportunity for the administration to act and ensure the public is 
protected.
  The committee report also includes encouragement from the committee 
``to keep in mind the public safety aspects of the project when 
considering permit applications and to pursue ways to shorten review 
times, including by performing reviews currently and eliminating 
duplicative reviews to the maximum extent practicable.''
  I call the Corps to work with the communities across the country and 
approve these needed public safety projects to prevent needless loss of 
life. With reassurances from Chairman Simpson that the committee will 
continue to encourage the Corps to prioritize public safety projects, I 
would consider withdrawing the amendment at this time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would assure the gentleman that we share his concerns, 
and in fact, if you look at the underlying bill, we have reduced 
funding for the ASA's office by 60 percent, or $3 million, because of 
the same concerns we have that you are expressing and that Mr. Gosar 
expressed before you. It is a concern that all of us have. We will work 
with you to make sure that we address this.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Reclaiming my time, thanks for giving me those 
assurances. This is very important for public

[[Page 11515]]

safety purposes. Our constituents need evacuation routes in case there 
is a hurricane or any kind of disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in this title 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act;
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
       (5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
       (6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by 
     more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
       (b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or 
     activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, 
     section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996, or section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992.
       (c) The Corps of Engineers shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the 
     funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or 
     categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 102.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to award or modify any contract that commits 
     funds beyond the amounts appropriated for that program, 
     project, or activity that remain unobligated, except that 
     such amounts may include any funds that have been made 
     available through reprogramming pursuant to section 101.
       Sec. 103.  None of the funds in this Act, or previous Acts, 
     making funds available for Energy and Water Development, 
     shall be used to award any continuing contract that commits 
     additional funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 
     unless or until such time that a long-term mechanism to 
     enhance revenues in this Fund sufficient to meet the cost-
     sharing authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (Public Law 99-662) is enacted.
       Sec. 104.  The Secretary of the Army may transfer to the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service 
     may accept and expend, up to $4,700,000 of funds provided in 
     this title under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' to 
     mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers 
     projects.
       Sec. 105.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of 
     Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or 
     enforce any change to the regulations in effect on October 1, 
     2012, pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill 
     material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.).
       Sec. 106.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of 
     Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or 
     enforce any change to the regulations and guidance in effect 
     on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definition of waters 
     under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including the provisions of the 
     rules dated November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating 
     to such jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated 
     January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, relating to such 
     jurisdiction.
       Sec. 107.  As of the date of enactment of this Act and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Army shall not 
     promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an 
     individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled 
     or functional firearm, at a water resources development 
     project covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act), if--
       (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from 
     possessing the firearm; and
       (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the 
     law of the State in which the water resources development 
     project is located.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                central utah project completion account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, $9,874,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be deposited into the 
     Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use 
     by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission: Provided, That of the amount provided under this 
     heading, $1,300,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2016, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying out related 
     responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided 
     further, That for fiscal year 2015, of the amount made 
     available to the Commission under this Act or any other Act, 
     the Commission may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for 
     administrative expenses.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

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

                      water and related resources

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, and others, $856,351,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $25,000 shall be available for transfer to 
     the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $6,840,000 shall be 
     available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin 
     Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary 
     may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided, 
     That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the 
     overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further, 
     That of the total appropriated, the amount for program 
     activities that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or 
     the Bureau of Reclamation special fee account established by 
     16 U.S.C. 6806 shall be derived from that Fund or account: 
     Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 
     are available until expended for the purposes for which the 
     funds were contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced 
     under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and 
     are available until expended for the same purposes as the 
     sums appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That 
     of the amounts provided herein, funds may be used for high-
     priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth 
     Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Ruiz

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

       Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to thank 
Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work and 
collaboration on this bipartisan and important bill.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Act, to provide additional, critical resources for 
Bureau of Reclamation environmental restoration projects that address 
or improve public health conditions.
  The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for managing, developing, 
and restoring our Nation's waters to support the interests of the 
American public. Mr. Chairman, I can think of fewer efforts more in the 
public interest than protecting the public's health.
  Across the West, the Bureau helps water districts develop recycled 
water technology to provide safe irrigation water for crops, provides 
engineering assistance for restoration efforts, and monitors water 
quality so that communities can take preventative action to protect the 
environment and public health.
  There are many examples in our Nation, and I will give just a couple.
  In southern California, in the Coachella Valley, the Bureau of 
Reclamation plays a large role in protecting public health by 
monitoring and helping restore the water equality of the Salton Sea. 
For several decades now, deteriorating water quality and

[[Page 11516]]

reduced water inflows have made the Salton Sea a threat to southern 
California residents, and eventually the sea could threaten public 
health in cities all across southern California.
  As the sea dries and the water level recedes, exposed lake bed will 
release windblown contaminants containing selenium, arsenic, and 
pesticides. Exposure to these contaminants has been shown to increase 
the number and severity of asthma attacks; decrease the growth and 
development of lung function in school-age children; and increase the 
risk of cardiac disease, heart attacks, and mortality in adults.
  Already, exposed lake bed on the southern portion of the sea has had 
an impact on local air quality, with rates of pediatric asthma-related 
hospitalizations in the region far above the national average. As an 
emergency medicine physician, I have seen firsthand the effects of poor 
air and water quality.
  The public health danger to families and children from the Salton Sea 
is very real, and to help address the exposed lake bed in the southern 
portion of the sea, a partnership has put together the Red Hill Bay 
project to cover over 700 acres of exposed lake bed with clean water. 
These shallow pools will cover the dangerous contaminants in the lake 
bed, preventing them from becoming airborne and threatening the 
surrounding communities.
  The Bureau of Reclamation supports projects like Red Hill Bay all 
across the Western United States, working with local stakeholders who 
recognize the value of ensuring our waters are well managed.
  For example, in my neighboring district, California's 42nd District, 
the Bureau of Reclamation assisted in helping to mitigate public health 
concerns and water quality issues at Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore, like 
the Salton Sea, has faced chronic challenges related to water level and 
water quality. Algae blooms from the lake caused public health 
concerns, and even took the life of a child.
  A collaboration between local governments, local water districts, and 
the Bureau of Reclamation came together to establish a supply of 
recycled water to maintain water levels and installed aerators to 
reduce algae blooms and prevent fish die-offs by keeping oxygen levels 
high.
  Lake Elsinore now supports many local businesses, has a flourishing 
tourism industry, and is safer for residents to enjoy all the benefits 
the lake has to offer, including swimming and water sports.
  My amendment would provide additional resources towards many Bureau 
water projects throughout the Nation that will protect the public's 
health. The health of the American people must be put above politics, 
and I urge my colleagues to come together to support my amendment.
  I reserve 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 support the gentleman's amendment 
and to say that he has worked so hard in the interest of maintaining 
both public health and restoration of the environment related to the 
Salton Sea. Unless you have actually seen the Salton Sea and the 
changing nature of the ecosytem in southern California, you can't 
imagine how enormous that challenge is. From the very first day he was 
elected, Mr. Ruiz was talking to us about the needs of that particular 
part of our country.
  I know that polluted agricultural runoff had something to do with 
what has happened to the Salton Sea. The changing nature of rainfall 
has transformed it.
  I think about the Sea of Azov in Russia and how dangerous that has 
become to the surrounding environment. We face the same challenge here 
in our country.
  I know it is difficult to resolve this issue, and it will take many 
years, because it didn't just take one year for the sea to become a 
wasteland, really, and the surrounding communities so affected.
  I just want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and for keeping 
us and your part of America on the right course. You are very talented 
and very caring. I just wanted to stand in support of your efforts.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gardner

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

       Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000) (increased by $3,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
which allocates $3 million for water conservation and delivery.
  The funding for this amendment is taken directly from the underlying 
bill's $56 million appropriation to the Bureau of Reclamation for water 
projects. The amendment directs $3 million of this sum specifically for 
water conservation and delivery projects.
  The Bureau of Reclamation water conservation delivery fund provides 
critical assistance to Western areas of the country. In the arid West, 
water is our life. These projects improve water supply quality, address 
water shortage issues, improve conservation measures, and stabilize 
water supplies. These are projects like the Arkansas Valley Conduit, 
with over 100 miles of pipelines serving dozens of communities with 
clean, abundant, and affordable water.
  In the Western United States, water is an economic driver. In order 
to attract more economic growth, either in business or agriculture, 
every industry in the West is dependent upon an ample and safe water 
supply.
  This amendment will allow the Bureau of Reclamation more flexibility 
to continue with these types of projects while simultaneously improving 
public health and improving the environment. Also, these projects are 
critically important during drought years so that water is 
appropriately allocated for both municipal and agriculture uses.
  The water conservation and delivery line in the Bureau's budget has 
been previously used for the California Central Valley Project, 
Washington State's Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, the 
Arkansas Valley Conduit in Colorado, and the Lewiston Orchard Project 
in the chairman's home State of Idaho.
  I urge support of the amendment, and I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the coauthor of 
this amendment, and I thank him for leadership on issues relating to 
water in the State of Colorado.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague (Mr. Gardner) for 
yielding to me and for his partnership in this critical matter.
  As you know, water is the lifeblood of the Western United States and 
absolutely critical to the health of our communities and our local 
economies. In order to meet federally mandated water quality standards 
across the West, the Bureau of Reclamation water conservation and 
delivery fund is essential.
  In Colorado, as is the case throughout the West, we have similar 
needs to be able to move forward with engineering design work on the 
authorized features of existing Reclamation projects. This amendment 
will provide the Bureau of Reclamation the flexibility it needs to be 
able to allocate funds to advance and complete ongoing work that will 
provide efficient delivery of water from an existing multipurpose 
Reclamation project as authorized by Congress in 1962.

                              {time}  1545

  Among the eligible projects within the water conservation and 
delivery fund is, in my district, the Arkansas Valley Conduit. It is 
the final component of the Fryingpan-Arkansas

[[Page 11517]]

Project, which is a water diversion and storage project in the lower 
Arkansas Valley.
  Once constructed, the conduit will deliver clean drinking water to 
families, producers, and municipalities throughout southeastern 
Colorado.
  By directing $3 million of this sum specifically for water 
conservation and delivery projects, the Bureau of Reclamation can 
proceed with ongoing work on water supply delivery projects at a more 
efficient pace to be able to reach our shared goals in meeting 
increased water demands by developing and maximizing clean water 
supplies.
  It is our hope that Reclamation prioritizes these projects and 
resolves the water shortages that exist in the West while enhancing our 
regional development and promoting our job growth.
  Mr. GARDNER. Again, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for his leadership. He is another Western lawmaker who has 
done tremendous good for our Western States when it comes to water 
conservation delivery efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the support of 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 Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mrs. Noem

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

       Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.
  Mrs. NOEM. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and all of the 
committee staff for their hard work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most important things during the 
appropriations process is making tough decisions and identifying 
priorities that need funding. One area that is specifically important 
is providing water throughout the country, including in rural areas.
  In my State and across the West, there are critical water 
infrastructure projects that are waiting to be funded. They were 
promised to be funded by the Federal Government years ago, and 
construction is underway on many of these projects.
  Many communities have put in more than their fair share of funding. 
The States have done so as well. The only entity that has failed to 
follow through on that commitment is the Federal Government.
  Water is one of our most basic needs, and we need to ensure that we 
have safe and affordable drinking water across this country.
  For rural areas, it is also a jobs issue. Without the completion of 
rural water projects, businesses aren't able to create much-needed 
jobs, and local economies suffer. Unfortunately, year after year, the 
funding for these projects continues to decline under the President's 
budget requests.
  We have the opportunity here today to make some meaningful progress 
on these projects and ensure that the Federal Government follows 
through on its previous commitments. Even with my amendment, the 
funding for rural water projects is still below what it was for fiscal 
year 2014.
  My bill increases the funding for rural water projects, and it does 
not increase net budget outlays. We need to support critical 
infrastructure and essential access to water, and I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Daines).
  Mr. DAINES. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on 
this amendment, as well as the chairman for allowing us to have this 
debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. In the 
appropriations process, we must prioritize funding for necessary 
projects and balance those with spending reductions to reduce the 
national debt.
  In Montana, we depend on a steady supply of water to irrigate our 
crops, to water our livestock, and to provide energy through 
hydropower--a renewable resource.
  The struggle for clean water continues to create health challenges 
for Indian Country and nearby communities, in addition to making 
economic development more difficult.
  Without this critical funding for Rocky Boy's-North Central Mountain 
Rural Water System and the Fort Peck Reservation-Dry Prairie Rural 
Water System, thousands of Montanans in rural communities could go 
without quality water accessibility.
  The President's budget requests for these critical projects continue 
to decline each year, while prioritizing other accounts that are not 
related to the basic needs of our rural communities.
  Mr. Chairman, every year that we wait to delay the funding of these 
essential projects, the more expensive construction, operation, and 
maintenance become.
  For instance, the Fort Peck project's reduced funding levels have 
doubled the authorization period, and inflation has nearly doubled the 
overall cost of construction, but the projected savings is still $11 
million.
  However, overhead will consume the projected savings on the project 
to date and will encroach upon the authorized construction ceiling.
  The CBO has just scored this amendment. This decreases the net budget 
outlays. Passing this amendment is the responsible stewardship of tax 
dollars and is important to rural communities.
  It is also a nonpartisan issue. Funding these projects is supported 
by the entire Montana delegation--both Republicans and Democrats--and 
last year, a similar amendment passed by voice vote. I urge the support 
of this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlelady's 
amendment, and I do so for several reasons.
  First of all, the renewable energy accounts, where the funds are 
taken from, have already been reduced by $113 million from the prior 
fiscal year.
  Frankly, those accounts are part of our future--of our future energy 
security for the country and, as I said in my opening statement, of the 
preservation of our liberty.
  With over 40 percent of our energy resources being imported, there is 
no higher priority than for us to diversify our energy portfolio and to 
reclaim our own economic and energy security. Further reduction in 
those accounts will have a detrimental impact not just in Montana, but 
across this country.
  In addition, the amendment, as I understand it, reduces Departmental 
administration by $6 million. Given my colleague's frustration with the 
Department's pace on many activities, including on the approval of our 
LNG export efforts, this seems to be a case of, really, making it much 
more difficult for the Department to do its job.
  Let me put on the record again that, just since 2003, in the last 
decade, our country has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign 
petroleum. This is a vast shift of wealth, and thousands upon 
thousands--literally millions of jobs--are evaporating from our 
country.
  Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports for 2030 that the market outlook 
estimates that renewables will command over 60 percent of the $7.7 
trillion of power investment that is going to be made someplace.
  When we think about our country's future, we must be vigilant, and we 
must be smart. We must be engaged in those markets because, if we 
aren't, we see what China is doing and we see what Russia is doing.
  We have to pay attention. We can't rob Peter to try to pay Paul. Any 
water project, whether it is in Montana or whether it is in Ohio, is 
largely a

[[Page 11518]]

public project, and you have to make money in the market to pay for it.
  Reasserting ourselves and becoming leaders in energy, rather than 
importers of energy, is where America needs to head. I think this takes 
us in the wrong direction.
  We should be leading investment in these technologies, not further 
eroding their capacity for our country, because other countries will 
displace us, and they are doing so.
  Now, in terms of rural water projects in the Bureau of Reclamation, 
those water projects already will receive $21 million above the 
administration's request, so it is not like our subcommittee isn't 
doing its job.
  Frankly, our part of America gets much less attention than the West 
does, in terms of rural water investment. We have a 50-50 match in our 
part of the country.
  We don't have anything like the Bureau of Reclamation, and we have to 
compete in the Midwest for those precious dollars. We don't have 
enough, but we manage to move along as best we can.
  I think that we have done what we can in our bill for rural water, 
and I really would take objection to the gentlelady's efforts to try to 
further cripple those renewable energy accounts that are going to help 
to create America's new future and to lead us toward energy 
independence and toward a reassumption of our liberties. I would hope 
that she would find another way to achieve her objectives.
  I think I must also offer the comment that, as we look toward the 
West and its water needs, because of what is happening in the 
environment, we may be at a point in America's history at which we have 
to put our dollars where it makes the most sense, and if development is 
occurring in areas that are already water short or that are becoming 
desert--where the desert is growing and where literally nature can't 
provide what it did, maybe, 100 years ago--I think we have to manage 
the public dollars more wisely.
  I oppose the gentlelady's amendment. I hope that we can find a 
different way to meet her genuine concerns.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, a couple of facts to follow up on the 
gentlelady's comments.
  What we are trying to do is to get clean drinking water to 
individuals, to people, where the Federal Government has failed to 
follow through on commitments that it has made previously.
  The reason that we have already plussed up some of these dollars is 
that the President's budget requests have been so low over the last few 
years, so we have had to do that in order to try to meet the need. 
Water projects still, even if my amendment is adopted, will receive 
less than they did in 2014.
  I certainly understand your concerns, as I am a supporter of an all-
of-the-above American energy supply as well, but we have people waiting 
for clean drinking water. That should be a priority, and this amendment 
should be adopted.
  Last year, it was voice adopted because everybody recognized the 
importance of making sure that people in this country could get clean 
drinking water. They at least should have that basic privilege.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for everyone's support 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 South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $56,995,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of 
     Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount 
     of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water 
     for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to 
     in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.

                    california bay-delta restoration

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply, 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent 
     with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     $37,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities 
     may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other 
     participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized 
     purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be 
     used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program 
     management: Provided further, That CALFED implementation 
     shall be carried out in a balanced manner with clear 
     performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in 
     achieving the goals and objectives of the Program.

                       policy and administration

       For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2016, 
     $53,849,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That 
     no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and 
     administration expenses.

               bureau of reclamation loan program account

                    (including rescission of funds)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $500,000 is hereby permanently rescinded.

                        administrative provision

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

[[Page 11519]]

     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment 
     Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department 
     of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future 
     obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or 
     providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the 
     San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit 
     beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal 
     reclamation law.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,789,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of such 
     amount, $150,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2016, for program direction.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

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

       Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $112,686,000)''.
       Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $165,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to boost the energy efficiency initiatives across America 
that have a proven return on investment for taxpayers.
  This amendment is paid for by reducing--but not by eliminating--
accounts that do not have the same return on investment for taxpayers.
  The appropriation in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable 
energy is $112 million below the 2014 appropriated level, and it is 
$528 million below the budget request.
  Now, I wish we could meet the budget request this year, but, 
colleagues, we should at least restore the money back to last year's 
levels, which is still a very modest investment in energy efficiency 
and renewable energy for America.
  The funds tied to energy efficiency and renewable energy fuel jobs 
across America in advanced manufacturing and clean energy.

                              {time}  1600

  These investments in energy efficiency help make our businesses more 
competitive compared to businesses all across the globe. In addition, 
energy efficiency reduces the cost for consumers--wouldn't that be 
revolutionary, to put some money back into the pockets of our neighbors 
in this day and age--and has the added benefit of providing cleaner 
air.
  Back home in Florida, I have noticed so many local governments 
investing in better lighting and energy efficiency. So this even has 
the potential to lower property taxes for our neighbors back home.
  Mr. Chairman, we are on the cusp of a technological revolution when 
it comes to energy and energy efficiency. Look at what is happening all 
across America. We have a very diverse portfolio. But this budget today 
is skewed a little bit. It chops energy efficiency and renewable energy 
that has sufficient great potential to create jobs and it is a little 
too heavy on some of the fossil fuel areas.
  I will suggest an area that my Republican colleagues on the Energy 
and Commerce Committee criticized during a committee meeting not too 
long ago, and that was the carbon capture and sequestration. Compare 
the return on investment right now provided in this bill for the 
multimillion-dollar amount we are putting into carbon capture that is 
not proven compared to what we could achieve on the return on 
investment on energy efficiency for our neighbors, for our businesses, 
and for jobs. So, therefore, this amendment will shift a little bit, 
not all, from those technologies and put it into a place where it 
works--energy efficiency.
  I appreciate Ranking Member Kaptur's vision. She understands that 
this is our future, this is a job creator. I appreciate her work and 
Chairman Simpson's work on the appropriations bill.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Castor amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I share my colleague's support for 
energy efficiency programs, the bill funds EERE, the Energy Efficiency 
portfolio, at $26 million above last year's level, with targeted 
increases for weatherization assistance and advanced manufacturing.
  What we did in this bill, actually, was refocus some of the 
administration's requested increases in the renewable energy arena to 
where we actually use energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas provide 82 
percent of the electricity in this country, of the energy used in this 
Nation's homes and businesses, 82 percent. Reducing the fossil energy 
research--they are studying things like how heat can more efficiently 
be converted into electricity in a cross-cutting effort with the 
nuclear and solar energy programs, how water can be more efficiently 
used in power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical 
power.
  The amendment would also reduce funding for a program that ensures we 
use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as 
possible. In fact, if we increased the efficiency of our fossil fuel 
plants by just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million 
households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the 
ground.
  That is the research we are doing in the fossil energy area. That is 
where we would take the money out of, the area where most of our 
electricity is produced from, and shift it to an area, while important, 
doesn't produce nearly as much energy as the other areas in this bill.
  So, while I understand what the gentlelady is trying to do, we have 
actually increased the energy efficiency budget, as I said, by $26 
million above last year, and we will continue to work on that.
  I would oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to vote against 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Marchant). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The amendment was rejected.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Wenstrup

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

       Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,421,000)''.
       Page 23, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,540,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to follow through on a promise the 
American Government made to the people in my district and across the 
country to fund nuclear cleanup projects at cold war enrichment 
facilities. This amendment would direct $15 million to the Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
  At the height of the atomic age, the government began enriching 
uranium in our arms race against the Soviet threat. One of these 
facilities is the Portsmouth plant in Pike County, Ohio. Today, half a 
century later, it needs to be decommissioned and

[[Page 11520]]

cleaned up, a task that has been entrusted to the Department of Energy.
  Like other DOE projects, Portsmouth is largely funded through uranium 
sales. Since the price of uranium has dropped significantly since 
Fukushima, additional funding is necessary to make up for the loss of 
revenue.
  The community cannot move forward without an adequate cleanup. The 
people of Pike County and the region worked extremely hard for the 
national security interests of this country. Unfortunately, we, the 
Federal Government, seem to be running from them in their time of need. 
This community is held hostage, unable to develop their economy and 
their land until the cleanup is complete. Delaying the cleanup punishes 
a community that answered our Nation's call, and now our Nation is 
willing to walk away from them, leaving a radioactive and chemical 
contamination.
  Without adequate funding, the Federal Government is leaving a 
massively contaminated site right in the heartland of our country. A 
delay in funding for fiscal 2015 only means a higher cost to the 
government in future years.
  The success of the environmental management work at the Portsmouth 
plant is critical to the Pike County area and the entire region. We are 
talking about good, honest, hardworking Americans, and we are standing 
in their way by undercutting the project's funding and leaving a 
contaminated cold war facility in the heart of their community.
  In an effort to minimize wasteful delays, unnecessary layoffs, and 
job loss, our amendment would provide $15 million for this fund, 
completely paid for by offsets in the bill from less crucial 
administrative and energy accounts. This amendment prioritizes funding 
for an actual, existing, ongoing project that employs hundreds of 
hardworking Ohioans and keeps important environmental management work 
on schedule.
  I acknowledge and appreciate the committee's work to include $15 
million in funding for this project, but the bottom line is this is far 
short of the needed $65 million more to continue the cleanup project in 
a timely manner. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 
With each delay, the cost goes up.
  Our Nation benefited from the work conducted in Pike County, and now 
they are being left out and endure more uncertainty from Washington. 
This site must be cleaned up. It is an environmental imperative and an 
economic imperative, and it is the right thing to do.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WENSTRUP. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. So I understand, where are you taking the $15 million 
from?
  Mr. WENSTRUP. The $15 million is coming from renewable energy 
accounts and less crucial administrative accounts.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Could I offer the opinion that, if the gentleman found 
different offsets, this Member, as an Ohioan, would be very interested 
in supporting the workers in Portsmouth and in that region of Ohio 
which are so devastated.
  At the moment, I can't do that because I don't agree with the 
offsets, but I wanted to place the opinion on the record. And I thank 
the gentleman very much for his efforts on behalf of the State of Ohio 
and that region of Ohio.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Reclaiming my time, you know, renewable is not an 
option for this area of America until it is cleaned up, and waiting 
costs more and it paralyzes a large portion of Ohio.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
although I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. The 
gentleman's amendment would increase appropriated funds to Portsmouth 
by another $15 million. Because of the overall reductions that were 
necessary in the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup programs, 
we balanced these reductions across all cleanup sites so that no one 
site is targeted.
  I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns about the site, and 
this bill provides strong support for Portsmouth. Despite the fact that 
funding at most sites is going down, the bill actually boosts funding 
for the site by $37 million above the fiscal year 2014 and $15 million 
above the budget request.
  However, I can't support further increases to compensate for the 
Department's off-budget uranium transfers, which our subcommittee has 
criticized for years. The Department has been transferring stockpiles 
of uranium to generate cleanup funds for the site, a practice the 
Government Accountability Office has determined to be illegal and which 
could be further held up in fiscal year 2015 due to recent litigation.
  The Department's reliance on its uranium transfers has 
inappropriately circumvented the appropriations process, has adversely 
impacted our domestic uranium mining and conversion industry, and is 
now creating further problems as the market price of uranium continues 
to drop.
  I am also concerned about the amendment's offsets, particularly the 
cut to EERE, which is $113 million below the budget request. The last 
amendment, by Ms. Castor, proposed increasing EERE by taking money out 
of fossil energy. I opposed that. It wasn't because I don't like EERE. 
It was because I didn't like where they were taking the money from. 
This would take money out of EERE that is already reduced $113 million 
from last year, which I also oppose.
  So I must oppose this gentleman's amendment and urge Members to do 
the same.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I wanted to make a point on this particular Portsmouth 
facility and the Department of Energy's seeming inability to help 
communities transition. Whether it is coal-fired utilities and the 
issues that coal country faces in general or here you have a facility 
that is important in the Nation's defense looking back and looking 
forward, and so many times it just seems that when technologies change, 
when situations change, the local people who have invested their lives 
just get spit out.
  I just wanted to put that statement on the record, because I know the 
Department of Energy is listening today, and we have the ability in 
this country to transition communities. Maybe in places like Portsmouth 
we should be doing more on renewables, because America is going to need 
renewables; and maybe there is a way the Department of Energy could be 
more creative, whether it is natural gas, whether it is storage of 
certain material and so forth. But to put all those people out of work, 
without a plan, without a transition plan, it is like, you know, the 
private sector giving them the pink slip at Christmas. That is when 
they always give them the pink slips, right before Christmas. It is so 
heartless. Here you have a community that is going to be heavily 
affected.
  So I just wanted to say on the record, Mr. Chairman of the full 
committee, that I just feel that the Department has been a bit laggard, 
and I would hope that they could work with us in a more constructive 
way. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and he is very 
well-intentioned as he comes to the floor today. I just wish I could do 
more to convince the Department to help him.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentlelady's 
comments.
  I should say, it is not Portsmouth's or the gentleman from Ohio's 
fault that they have been using uranium transfers to fund this. It is 
not the people who are working there; it is not their fault. It is the 
Department's fault, and we have raised concerns for years that that is 
inappropriate and illegal. We knew that it was going to come to this 
when those uranium transfers couldn't be made anymore because of the 
price of uranium and other

[[Page 11521]]

things, and it is the result of the choice of the Department to fund 
this by using the uranium transfers. Unfortunately, it has come to what 
we predicted would be a problem when we started raising these concerns 
with the Department.
  So, while I understand what the gentleman is doing and sympathize 
with what the gentleman is doing and will be willing to work with him 
to see what could be done as we move this bill forward, I do have to 
oppose the amendment as it currently exists.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 60 seconds to my colleague from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of 
the amendment offered by Dr. Wenstrup. This much-needed amendment will 
blunt the job losses that are coming to the hardworking men and women 
who are currently working to try and clean up that Atomic Energy 
Commission plant there in Piketon.
  I understand the committee's attempts, and I appreciate the 
committee's attempts. Unfortunately, the $15 million that they have put 
in this appropriation is still not enough to stop the hundreds of 
layoffs that will come if nothing more is done, nor is it enough to 
keep this critical cleanup project on track so that the property can be 
developed to create more jobs to replace the ones that are going to be 
lost anyway.

                              {time}  1615

  That is why this amendment is so necessary. It reroutes money from 
renewable and overhead costs to pay for the cleanup work that we 
promised to the Piketon, Ohio, folks; and we ought to stay with that. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. 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 Ohio will be 
postponed.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

  Mr. SWALWELL 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 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $111,641,000)''.
       Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $161,879,450)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as 
I may consume.
  This legislation asks the simple question: Will we look forward, as a 
country, as to where we draw our energy resources, toward cleaner, more 
renewable sources? Or will we continue to look backwards toward dirtier 
fossil fuels that will harm our environment? Do we want to be a part of 
a 21st century energy policy? Or do we want to be a part of a 20th 
century energy policy?
  My amendment increases the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, or EERE, R&D funding levels by $111.6 million above what is in 
the bill. The offset comes from the fossil energy R&D in an amount 
necessary to make the outlays in my amendment budget-neutral.
  The request from the majority exceeds the White House's request for 
fossil fuel R&D but cuts the request for EERE. This increase in EERE 
would bring the funding levels back to fiscal year 2014 level and help 
ensure that, at the very least, we are not moving backwards in our work 
towards energy security.
  My colleagues across the aisle, instead, are seeking to cut this 
forward-looking program by $111 million. Reducing funding for EERE on 
top of the cuts that it suffered last year is incredibly shortsighted, 
not to mention it is done at the expense of protecting the fossil fuel 
industry which is already doing pretty all right, if you ask me.
  I find it hard to believe that any of us actually have a problem with 
supporting efforts to become more energy efficient. The only reason I 
can think of that anyone would support any cuts to EERE would be a 
dislike on the part of some for the term ``renewable energy.''
  By increasing energy efficiency in our homes, at our businesses, and 
through developing advanced models and methods of manufacturing, we 
will save money, we will improve productivity, and create new good-
paying jobs here the United States. And, most importantly, yes, we can 
reduce emissions from power plants that are contributing to global 
climate change and leave an Earth that is much healthier for our 
children.
  One great example of this is that EERE is partnering with Colorado 
State University to provide small- and medium-sized manufacturing 
companies no-cost energy assessments. More than 650 energy assessments 
have been done to date, with an average of $30,000 in energy savings 
per assessment. I would say that programs like this are worthy of a 
sustained support and that $5.6 billion in savings has been found 
across the country. EERE's manufacturing program is also enabling us to 
become a world leader in making new energy technologies.
  So the choice is clear: we can accept this massive cut to EERE and 
risk becoming a net importer of next-generation energy technologies, or 
we can do what America has always done, and we can look forward, and we 
can make the needed investments to help us become a net exporter of 
these next generation technologies.
  EERE supports all types of innovative and potentially groundbreaking 
research in solar, wind, geothermal, and water technologies. Given how 
abundant these resources are, from the sun in the southwest to the wind 
in the plains to the numerous rivers and potential for tidal power, we 
would be foolish to pull back on the potential for using these 
environmentally sustainable resources for power on a larger scale.
  The greatest challenge today with the renewables is that when the sun 
is not shining and wind is not blowing, it is very hard to harness 
those energies. However we are very, very close to closing that gap, 
and EERE goes a very long way to bridging that gap.
  They are also helping to pioneer research into advanced combustion 
engines that will drastically increase gas mileage, with EERE funding, 
in traditional cars, saving taxpayers countless amounts of money even 
as they remove harmful emissions from the atmosphere.
  EERE R&D can help our Nation transform the way that we generate and 
use energy. This cut that is proposed by the majority is unnecessary, 
ill-conceived, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to 
restore the funding level of fiscal year 2014.
  Appropriations is about priorities, and priorities reflect values. 
America has always looked forward. And we should not look anywhere but 
forward when it comes to where we receive America's energy needs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman from 
California's comments, I have to say that you can oppose this amendment 
and still like renewable energy, in contradiction to the gentleman's 
statement.
  I rise to oppose this amendment that would increase funding for 
energy efficiency and renewable energy by $112 million using the fossil 
energy account, again, as an offset.
  This year, funding for EERE is $1.789 billion, $113 million below 
last year and

[[Page 11522]]

$528 million below the budget request. It is still $1.789 billion. It 
is not like we are eliminating EERE. They still have a substantial 
amount of money in that account. They have much more in that account 
than they have in the fossil energy account or that they have in the 
nuclear energy account.
  This is a modest 6 percent cut from the robust funding level included 
in last year's omnibus appropriation bill and slightly below the fiscal 
year 2013 level presequester. Put another way, there is nearly $1 
billion more than last year's House bill.
  The funding that the recommendation provides is focused on three main 
priorities, where he is trying to take money out of the fossil energy 
account: helping America's manufacturers compete in the global 
marketplace; supporting the Weatherization Assistance Program; and 
addressing future high gas prices. These are areas with broad 
bipartisan support. We simply cannot afford to increase funding in this 
bill by diverting funds from research to fossil energy.
  Fossil fuels, as I said during the last couple of amendments, such as 
coal, oil, and natural gas provide for 82 percent of the energy used by 
this Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the 
majority of energy needs for the foreseeable future. It is folly to 
believe that renewable energies are going to replace the base load that 
much of this produces for our energy needs in the future.
  But renewable energies are an important part of an all-of-the-above 
energy strategy that we have in this country. But it is not renewable 
energies that are going to replace all of the fossil energies that we 
have. So we need to do research into the fossil energies, too, and what 
they do.
  If we increase the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants, as I said 
earlier, by just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million 
households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the 
ground. That is energy efficiency. That is the research we are focusing 
on with funding this program. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. I appreciate the gentleman from Idaho and 
his comments.
  I would just ask that the majority's reasoning for--and I understand 
tough budgetary priorities have been made--but to reduce EERE's budget 
but to increase the fossil R&D budget, maybe if you could explain the 
reasoning behind an increase in fossil but a decrease in renewables?
  Mr. SIMPSON. As I said, we tried to refocus the request from the 
administration to those areas that actually produce the energy. Eighty-
two percent, as I said during my statement, is produced by coal, oil, 
and natural gas. That is where we do the majority of our research.
  I am not saying we shouldn't do anything in the renewable energies. I 
love renewable energies. I don't believe that they are going to replace 
the majority of our base load.
  And, as the gentleman said, you have got real problems when the sun 
isn't shining and you are using solar energy. You have got real 
problems if you are trying to address the base load. That means, when 
you turn on the switch, the power actually comes on and the light goes 
on. If you are trying to replace that base load and the wind isn't 
blowing, you have got no wind power. But they are a very important and 
vital part of our energy mix. But we are trying to put the research 
into those areas that produce most of the electricity while still 
maintaining research into those areas that are important for the 
future.
  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. 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. Byrne

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

       Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,789,000,000)''.
       Page 19, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,789,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to strike all of the 
funding for the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy program. This program, under the Department of Energy, allows 
the government to invest millions of taxpayer dollars in high-risk 
research and development schemes for ``green energy'' projects to the 
tune, as we have heard already, of over $1.7 billion.
  The government should not be subsidizing the research and development 
initiatives of individual companies. Competition and innovation have 
been key aspects of private sector success from day one in the energy 
sector and other parts of our economy, and the government should not 
take the role of a private investor.
  For example, the EERE program facilitated a $2.5 million grant to 
Massachusetts-based TIAX LLC to work with Green Mountain Coffee to 
reduce the energy used in roasting coffee beans. The program has also 
allowed for millions of dollars to large chemical and auto companies, 
such as providing a subsidy to Ford Motor Company to develop a new 
sheet metal forming tool.
  I have nothing against those companies, but why should the government 
be picking and choosing winners and losers?
  Every business has a bottom line which, in and of itself, is a direct 
incentive for developing methods for becoming more energy efficient and 
innovative. By subsidizing this small sector of the energy economy, 
which includes renewables such as solar and wind, and allows for such 
focuses as the weatherization of houses, we are essentially allowing 
DOE to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on unconventional energy 
initiatives and projects that place taxpayer dollars at risk and that 
are not likely to produce a return on investment.
  We, as a Congress, have continuously stated the need for an all-of-
the-above energy strategy but continued investment into the EERE 
program focuses on a small portion of a largely unproductive portion of 
the energy sector at the expense of the more traditional energy 
sources, such as fossil fuels and nuclear, that we have a proven, 
reliable track record on.

                              {time}  1630

  With regard to the national energy policy, the committee report even 
highlights the President's failure to adequately focus our resources on 
an all-of-the-above energy strategy stating that ``his fiscal year 2015 
budget request, like its predecessors, instead seems more ideological 
than practical,'' cutting ``this country's most important energy 
sources in order to increase funding for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy programs.''
  It goes on to say that:

       As attractive as renewable energy may be, it will supply 
     only a mere fraction of this country's energy needs over the 
     next 50 years, and it presents considerable challenges to the 
     Nation's existing electric power grid, given its increasing 
     variability and uncertainty from supply and demand changes.

  At a time when our economy continues to recover and many Americans 
continue to struggle to make ends meet, including paying their energy 
bills, we must focus on reasonable energy strategies that allow for the 
most affordable and reliable energy resources for consumers and 
businesses alike.
  I am pleased that the committee has made reductions to this account 
in

[[Page 11523]]

general. However, I believe that eliminating the energy efficiency and 
renewable energy program altogether under the Department of Energy will 
achieve all of our goals, while allowing savings to go towards the very 
important goal of reducing the deficit of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman very much for allowing me this 
privilege.
  I just wanted to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and 
to say that one of the reasons we have a budget deficit is because we 
have an energy deficit. We have had an energy deficit for over a 
quarter century--well over three decades now--and every year, the 
average family in our country puts out over $2,800 now, just for 
gasoline for their automobiles.
  There were those who said we shouldn't incentivize the ethanol 
industry. Now, about 10 percent of every tank full of gasoline has 
ethanol in it, and that has reduced our imports. If you look at the 
hemorrhage from this country of over $10 trillion over the next quarter 
century with oil being $100 a barrel and you look at what is happening 
to the middle class in our country because we aren't energy 
independent, we had better be serious about changing the composition of 
energy production in this country because it is part of the major 
problem we face in lack of robust economic growth.
  You can't import economic growth; you have to produce economic 
growth. One of the major ways we can produce economic growth in this 
country is to invent a future different from the past, so I completely 
oppose the gentleman's amendment because you are going to increase the 
Federal deficit because economic growth will not increase at the level 
that it should be.
  It has been slowly creeping forward with the weight of two wars on 
our backs over the last decade or so, but you can't kill the future.
  In Alabama especially, you have that major Huntsville operation with 
all those NASA facilities and all those subcontractors, and there are 
parts of Alabama that are doing very well as a result of Federal 
investment, but don't hurt the rest of the country on the energy front 
because you have some perspective about why we might have a deficit.
  We have a deficit because we are not inventing the future fast 
enough, and we are importing too much of what we should be making here 
at home.
  So I appreciate the courtesy in allowing me to place this on the 
record. We can't kill renewable energy. We can't kill the future. We 
have got to be able to invent it and to cut off these imports and to 
begin to produce our way forward again in this country. I view it as 
our chief strategic vulnerability.
  So I appreciate the gentleman wants to do something good in terms of 
reducing the deficit. The best thing we can do is to invent our way 
forward and create new energy sources for this country, including the 
renewables.
  Don't kill the future. Oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I would 
respectfully yield the time that has been yielded to me back to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I also oppose the 
amendment. While I opposed increasing EERE funding in previous 
amendments, I am also opposed to eliminating EERE.
  When you look at the traditional energy sources that we use, the 
government has done research into the fossil fuels, into nuclear 
energy, into fracking, into other things, and hydrocarbons because they 
are important.
  It is not the companies that we try to pick winners and losers from, 
but it is the technology that we try to do the research into, to try to 
advance certain technologies and help technologies become more 
efficient for the consumers to use.
  We are trying to make automobiles more fuel efficient. We are trying 
to do work to make a SuperTruck that is much more fuel efficient.
  I guess it could be argued whether the government should do any 
research at all. Years and years ago, a lot of those things used to be 
done by private companies, when you had the Bell Labs and other types 
of things like that.
  Those aren't done anymore by companies because they are much, much 
too expensive for companies to do, but they are good for our economy.
  You could make the argument that we really shouldn't have put any 
money into space research and putting a man on the Moon--that should 
have been done by a private company--yet the American economy and the 
world has benefited greatly from the investment that American taxpayers 
made into NASA. The same is true with the fuels that we use.
  While we have tried in this bill to refocus what the administration 
had proposed, which was huge increases for renewable energies that 
produce a minority--a small amount--of energy compared to the others, 
we have tried to refocus that appropriation to where it more accurately 
reflects the actual energy used, the percentage of the actual energy 
used.
  That doesn't mean that we can completely eliminate EERE and renewable 
energies. As I said previously, I like renewable energies. I think they 
are cute. They provide a small portion of our overall energy demand, 
and I don't see that increasing a whole lot because they can't address 
the base load needs of our energy demand in this country, but they are 
going to be a very important part of an overall energy strategy.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with the 
gentlewoman. The reason we have a deficit problem is because we are 
spending money we don't have, and this is a clear example of where we 
are spending money we don't have.
  Even under the most optimistic projections for this year, we are 
going to run a $400-plus billion deficit, and we have got to start 
cutting in areas that may be good things or nice things, things we 
would like to do. We have got to start prioritizing our spending, and 
this is one place we can start.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge this House to adopt this amendment, to 
make a concrete step forward in reducing our deficit and not favoring 
certain companies in our economy over the others.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BYRNE. 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 Alabama will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

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

       Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,340,000)''.
       Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with Mr. Scott Peters 
of California. Mr. Peters and I both have an interest in saving money--
and this amendment would save $5 million--and in putting our money 
wisely in research on renewable energies which saves individuals 
money--individual citizens money--and protects our environment and 
using that money, instead of putting the money in the budget to do 
research

[[Page 11524]]

on coal and fossil fuels that contribute to global warming and a threat 
to our environment.
  The fact is the Department of Energy's energy efficiency program has 
been effective. This would increase it by $10.3 million. This program 
is underfunded already in the bill, and it would take $15 million from 
funds that are in the budget for coal research and development--$15 
million that are in excess of the President's budget request.
  The Department of Energy's energy efficiency programs partner with 
private industry, small business, and academics to facilitate research, 
development, and deployment of innovative energy efficiency 
technologies in manufacturing, buildings, and homes.
  In this collaboration with these different stakeholders, they have 
determined the best practices that can be found and then put into 
commercial use, resulting in energy-saving advancements that create 
jobs and give businesses competitive advantages with foreign 
competitors.
  Increasing energy efficiency is often done in ways that the 
individual citizen benefits in their home by saving money by more 
energy-efficient devices and appliances.
  We work on these in the Energy Department now, and they finalized new 
efficiency standards for more than 30 household and commercial 
products. These include dishwashers, refrigerators, water heaters--just 
the general stuff you have got in your kitchen and your home.
  Because of the Energy Department's new efficiency standards, 
consumers are estimated to save more than $400 billion--$400 billion 
for our constituents, consumers--and we will be cutting greenhouse 
emissions by 1.8 billion metric tons through 2030. That is a lot of 
help to our environment and a whole lot of help to our constituents in 
saving money.
  Just as an example, walk-in coolers and freezers, the rules that have 
been proposed will yield $37 billion in savings, while cutting 159 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That is the equivalent of taking 
30 million cars off the road.
  As the cost of energy continues to pose a burden on the American 
consumers' wallets--our voters, our taxpayers, our constituents--and 
costs them more money and extreme weather causes climate change which 
threatens the fauna and the flora, our property and way of life, we 
need to find ways to reduce energy consumption and decrease those 
adverse affects upon our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to redouble our efforts at this point on 
renewable energy and energy efficiency, and the efforts by this 
amendment would save money--$5 million for the budget, energy deficit 
reduction--it would protect our environment by having more research on 
energy efficiency standards, save our consumers and constituents money, 
and protect our environment at the same time, and yet not have us 
invest needlessly in fossil fuels, which is the opposite direction we 
should be going.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and show their 
vote for fiscally conservative, sound budget deficit reduction 
programs, as well as protect the environment and be concerned about the 
effects on the pocketbook of our individual consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The 
amendment would increase funding for the Office of Electrical Delivery 
and Energy Reliability by $10 million, using funds from fossil energy 
as an offset.
  We have already had conversations about taking funds out of where we 
create most of our energy. Some of the things that are done in fossil 
energy--and while the gentleman speaks passionately about the 
environment, fossil energy also is doing the research into 
sequestration and carbon capture technology.
  Now, I don't suspect that we are going to stop using fossil energy in 
the near future. In fact, if you looked at the predictions of the 
Department of Energy of what the percentage of fossil energy--what 
percentage of the energy is going to be used by fossil energy--be 
created by fossil energy 20 years from now, it is pretty close to what 
it is now.
  So it is important that we do some things environmentally, like 
carbon capture and sequestration, and we need to do some research into 
that. You are taking money out of an account that would do that. I 
don't think that is a wise thing for us to do.
  While I share my colleague's support for the electrical grid, that is 
why this bill before us already provides a $13 million increase for the 
Office of Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability above last year--
or a 9 percent increase over the last year.
  That is the largest percentage increase of any of the other applied 
energy programs within this bill--the largest increase.

                              {time}  1645

  The bill prioritizes programs within OE that keep our electrical grid 
safe and secure, including $47 million for cybersecurity and $16 
million for infrastructure security, which will provide $8 million for 
a strategic operations center to better respond to emergencies.
  While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I have already 
spoken of the important investments that our fossil energy research 
does for our economy and our electrical prices; therefore, I oppose the 
gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this and other amendments challenging 
NETL and the fossil fuel research, I would oppose.
  I would oppose because NETL is providing us the doorway--the pathway 
for energy independence. In the past, it has been funded by over $700 
million. This administration, in the last 4 or 5 years, has seen that 
erode down.
  Thanks to the appropriators, they have been putting that number back 
up again to what is appropriate, so it is a big difference, but we have 
already made a cut from $700 million down to $590-some million. We are 
talking about a huge cut that has already occurred.
  What we have to understand is this facility, just in the sponsor of 
this amendment, there are 24 projects, $27 million being spent in his 
State, to be able to take care of 300 jobs that are at risk.
  More importantly, what they are doing in these research laboratories 
across the country--they are trying to find ways to have carbon 
capture, for example. If we truly want to reduce our carbon footprint, 
we need to spend it through the Department of Energy in their 
laboratories.
  They are doing chemical looping. They are trying to develop ways of 
reducing our carbon footprint by energy-efficient high turbines for 
boilers to make energy from our coal and natural gas and steam. They 
are trying to find ways to improve it.
  These are things NETL is working with. They are trying to find ways 
of fracking the gas, so we get more gas out of the ground than we are 
getting right now. Instead of 15 or 20 percent, we would get 25 or 30 
percent.
  So NETL has a terrific track record. We have some of the best 
scientists and physicists in the country trying to improve energy 
efficiency, and we have already cut their budget by over $100 million 
in the last few years.
  This is not a time, Mr. Chairman, to be cutting their budget and 
challenging them even further. If we are going to reach this, I want 
them be able to reach internally to do the things that will give us 
energy independence.
  It is not a time to poke an eye at these hardworking people and what 
they have done. This is a time to continue the funding and continue 
this. If we are going to get energy independence, this is a way to do 
it, so I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and any others that 
further erodes the power of NETL to do their job.

[[Page 11525]]


  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to close by saying that one day--
one day, this House will see that we need to have more and more money 
put into research on energy efficiency and renewables and not into 
fossil fuel.
  I feel a cold wind coming from the South, and I realize that today is 
not that day, but one day, one day. I feel a chill coming, and I don't 
want anyone else to get a cold.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

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

       Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,789,000,000)''.
       Page 19, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 20, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $717,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $593,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $120,000,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,099,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires energy 
companies of all kinds to fund their own research and development 
programs, rather than continuing to require taxpayers to subsidize this 
activity to the tune of $3.1 billion.
  If we are serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have 
got to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers in the 
energy industry and start requiring every energy technology to compete 
on its own merits.
  For too long, we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can 
make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can 
with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced a long line 
of scandals, best illustrated by the Solyndra fiasco.
  This research doesn't even benefit the common good by placing these 
discoveries in the public domain. Any discoveries, although they are 
financed by the public, are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the 
private companies that received these public funds.
  Public costs, private benefit--that is called corporate welfare. That 
is what these energy subsidies amount to.
  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.
  Last year, when we debated similar amendments, we heard about all of 
the technological breakthroughs financed by the Federal Government, 
from railroads to the Internet, and we heard promises of future 
breakthroughs from this massive expenditure of Federal funds.
  Well, I freely recognize that, if you hand over billions of dollars 
of public subsidies to private business, those particular private 
businesses will do very well. I freely recognize that some of these 
dollars will produce breakthroughs that will then be owned by these 
private companies, and they will do extremely well.
  What the advocates of these subsidies fail to consider is the vast 
dilemma between the seen and the unseen, the immediate effects that you 
can clearly see and the unintended effects that cannot be seen.
  In this case, what we don't see clearly is the opportunity cost of 
these subsidies. Investors, using their own money, are very focused on 
making investments based on the highest economic return of these 
dollars. Politicians, using other people's money, make investment based 
on the highest political return of these dollars. This is the principal 
difference between Apple computer and Solyndra or between FedEx and the 
post office.
  These public subsidies, in effect, take dollars that would have 
naturally flowed into the most effective and promising technologies and 
diverts them into those that are politically favored.
  Dollar for dollar, this minimizes our energy potential, rather than 
maximizing it. For example, hydraulic fracking--it has revolutionized 
the fossil fuels industry. It offers us the very real potential of 
becoming energy independent.
  Well, after the 1973 oil embargo, the Federal Government began 
heavily subsidizing research on this technology. How did it work out? 
According to CNN:

       Between 1978 and 2000, the Federal Government spent about 
     $1.5 billion on oil and gas production research, much of it 
     on extracting fuel from shale, according to a 2001 report 
     from the National Academy of Sciences, but the process 
     remained expensive, and research faded as oil prices came 
     back down in the 1980s. By the 1990s, private industry began 
     to step back into the business with new technologies with 
     lower costs, leading to today's boom.

  We were told last year that the little companies don't have the 
capital to develop their big ideas. Well, that is why there are private 
investors who can accurately evaluate those ideas and invest in the 
best of them.
  Government investment doesn't do that very well or efficiently, and 
it is time we had done with it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I rise to oppose the amendment. This year, the committee 
continues its responsibility to reduce government spending, and we have 
worked tirelessly to that end. The bill cuts energy efficiency and 
renewable energy by $113 million below last year's level and $528 
million below the budget request.
  The fossil and nuclear energy programs received modest increases of 
$31 million and $10 million, respectively. The increase to fossil 
energy will support research into how heat can be more efficiently 
converted into electricity, how water can be more efficiently used in 
power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical power 
through fuel cells.
  The increase to nuclear energy will accommodate a $10 million 
increase to support base physical and cybersecurity activities at the 
Idaho National Laboratory to protect the Nation's nuclear energy 
materials and a range of national security programs at the NNSA, 
Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies.
  Although my colleague asserts that the amendment would keep the 
government from intervening in the private markets, these applied 
energy programs are strategic investments for our energy independence.
  I appreciate my colleague's desire to reduce the size of government, 
but this amendment goes too far by eliminating strategic investments we 
make for our own future.
  I, therefore, oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote 
against the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment. It is quite astounding that 
somebody from the State of California--a State that exists because of 
Federal investments through the entirety of its existence--would even 
come forward with an amendment like this. For someone from Ohio, it is 
very unusual to see this.
  Let me just say that, in opposing this amendment, I wish to offer the 
perspective that America can't live in the past, that, in fact, when 
one looks at what we are enduring because of our dependence on energy 
that is imported, there is no greater imperative than for us to unhook 
from imports.
  As I look at the gentleman's amendment, it is actually very 
destructive.

[[Page 11526]]

You actually destroy our future. America is not innovating at the level 
that we should in renewables. We have a burgeoning solar industry, but 
China has captured it. She steals the patents. She steals the 
innovation, and we don't do much about it.
  You take money from fossil programs. I don't have all of the 
scientific answers, but I know that a piece of our future relies on 
access that we have here in the ground.
  The energy portfolio and the research portfolio of the Department of 
Energy is critical. The reason we have the horizontal drilling 
technologies--those weren't developed outside by some humanitarian 
group. They were developed by the American people's investment in 
drilling technologies, which have now given us a gas boom that will 
help us transition to a new energy future because the gas won't last 
forever, but at least we have the possibility of becoming independent 
here at home again.
  I find the gentleman's amendment very backward-looking; and I would 
say, for someone from the State of California, if you look at the 
Bureau of Reclamation, if you look at all of the benefits that have 
accrued to the State of California and your own presence inside this 
50-state Union, it is because of the investment in energy and water 
that you even exist.
  So for you to come forward--and it may be a well-intentioned 
amendment, but to try to destroy the future of innovation through your 
amendment in the primary arena of imports--imported petroleum, which we 
have to unhook from and become energy independent--to me, is just 
astounding.

                              {time}  1700

  We live in very different universes--that is clear through your 
amendment--but there is no greater strategic imperative than for this 
country to become energy independent here at home. Our liberty depends 
on it. If you go back over the last 25 years and look at where our 
soldiers have died, it is very clear we are not independent.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think it is backward looking. I 
think that it fails to move America into a new energy future. I oppose 
this amendment with full gusto.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I forgive my friend from Ohio for not 
being up on California history. The fact is California exists because 
it had the freedom to develop its vast natural resources. It is 
government intervention that has caused this economy to decline 
dramatically.
  Both of my friends miss the point. Government simply doesn't make 
these investments as wisely as private investors who are using their 
own money. Private investors invest to the highest economic value of a 
dollar; politicians invest to get the highest political return.
  The gentlewoman is correct in one respect: California is the home of 
Solyndra and many, many other failed government investments in recent 
years. It is the private investors who took up the research on 
hydraulic fracturing after government investments failed that have 
produced the technologies that are giving us the economic boom in 
States like North Dakota that actually have the freedom to develop 
their resources on public lands.
  It is simply a question of efficiency, a question of waste, and a 
question of right and wrong. Let's stop picking winners and losers in 
the marketplace and let the investors use their own money to make these 
research and development decisions.
  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. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
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:
  An amendment by Mr. McAllister of Louisiana.
  An amendment by Ms. Hahn of California.
  An amendment by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
  An amendment by Mr. Wenstrup of Ohio.
  An amendment by Mr. Swalwell of California.
  An amendment by Mr. Byrne of Alabama.
  An amendment by Mr. McClintock of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McAllister

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 132, 
noes 284, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 371]

                               AYES--132

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Byrne
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeSantis
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     LaMalfa
     Lankford
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Peterson
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Ribble
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Wagner
     Walorski
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--284

     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurt
     Israel

[[Page 11527]]


     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     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
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Aderholt
     Campbell
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Flores
     Grimm
     Hanabusa
     Johnson, E. B.
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Richmond
     Rooney
     Sewell (AL)
     Waxman

                              {time}  1730

  Messrs. CARTER, SCHNEIDER, McHENRY, GOSAR, ROGERS of Michigan, Ms. 
WILSON of Florida, Messrs. McCAUL and DEUTCH changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HAHN, Messrs. HOLDING, WOMACK, and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 371, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 281, 
noes 137, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 372]

                               AYES--281

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McAllister
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--137

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Ellmers
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Holt
     Hudson
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Rothfus
     Runyan
     Rush
     Salmon
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Campbell
     Carney
     Gowdy
     Grimm
     Hanabusa
     Issa
     Johnson, E. B.
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Richmond


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1737

  Mr. ROONEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PERRY, YOUNG of Indiana, BENTIVOLIO, and JORDAN changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded

[[Page 11528]]

vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104, 
noes 316, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 373]

                               AYES--104

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Chabot
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Daines
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rokita
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Wagner
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--316

     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     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
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Campbell
     Carney
     Grimm
     Hanabusa
     Johnson, E. B.
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Richmond


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1741

  Mr. PITTENGER 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. Wenstrup

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Wenstrup) 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 112, 
noes 309, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 374]

                               AYES--112

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Byrne
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Daines
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Fleming
     Flores
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     Kingston
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Massie
     McAllister
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pitts
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Yoder
     Yoho

                               NOES--309

     Amodei
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais

[[Page 11529]]


     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Aderholt
     Campbell
     Carney
     Grimm
     Hanabusa
     Johnson, E. B.
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Richmond

                              {time}  1745

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell

  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 172, 
noes 245, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 375]

                               AYES--172

     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--245

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Aderholt
     Bilirakis
     Campbell
     Carney
     Clark (MA)
     Foster
     Grimm
     Hanabusa
     Johnson, E. B.
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Richmond
     Tierney


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1749

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded

[[Page 11530]]

vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) 
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 110, 
noes 310, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 376]

                               AYES--110

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Daines
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lankford
     Long
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McAllister
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Southerland
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho

                               NOES--310

     Amodei
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     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
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Aderholt
     Campbell
     Carney
     Grimm
     Hanabusa
     Johnson, E. B.
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Richmond
     Roe (TN)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1753

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


                  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 is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 321, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 377]

                                AYES--97

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Daines
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Hall
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kingston
     LaMalfa
     Lankford
     Long
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McAllister
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--321

     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner

[[Page 11531]]


     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     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
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Aderholt
     Campbell
     Carney
     Davis, Rodney
     Grimm
     Hanabusa
     Holt
     Johnson, E. B.
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Richmond
     Visclosky


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1757

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Marchant, 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. 
4923) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________