[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11682-11710]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 641 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4923.
  Will the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1555


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4923) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2015, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Black (Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) had 
been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 59, line 20.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Barton

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 508. 
        (a) Pilot Program.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.10101 et seq.), 
     the Secretary of Energy is authorized, in the current fiscal 
     year and subsequent fiscal years, to conduct a pilot program, 
     through 1 or more private sector partners, to license, 
     construct, and operate 1 or more government or privately 
     owned consolidated storage facilities to provide interim 
     storage as needed for spent nuclear fuel and high level 
     radioactive waste, with priority for storage given to spent 
     nuclear fuel located on sites without an operating nuclear 
     reactor.
       (b) Requests for Proposals.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue 
     a request for proposals for cooperative agreements--
       (1) to obtain any license necessary from the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission for the construction of 1 or more 
     consolidated storage facilities;
       (2) to demonstrate the safe transportation of spent nuclear 
     fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as applicable; and
       (3) to demonstrate the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel 
     and high-level radioactive waste, as applicable, at the 1 or 
     more consolidated storage facilities pending the construction 
     and operation of deep geologic disposal capacity for the 
     permanent disposal of the spent nuclear fuel.
       (c) Consent-based Approval.--Prior to siting a consolidated 
     storage facility pursuant to this section, the Secretary 
     shall enter into an agreement to host the facility with--
       (1) the State;
       (2) each unit of local government within the jurisdiction 
     of which the facility is proposed to be located; and
       (3) each affected Indian tribe.
       (d) Applicability.--In executing this section, the 
     Secretary shall comply with--
       (1) all licensing requirements and regulations of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and
       (2) all other applicable laws (including regulations).
       (e) Public Participation.--Prior to choosing a site for the 
     construction of a consolidated storage facility under this 
     section, the Secretary shall conduct 1 or more public 
     hearings in the vicinity of each potential site and in at 
     least 1 other location within the State in which the site is 
     located to solicit public comments and recommendations.
       (f) Use of Nuclear Waste Fund.--The Secretary may make 
     expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund to carry out this 
     section, subject to appropriations.

  Mr. BARTON (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from Texas and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON. Madam Chair, at the end of the dialogue on this 
amendment, it is my intention to withdraw it, and I want the House to 
know that.
  As we all know, we have the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that 
stipulates that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, 
through the Department of Energy, to accept all high-level nuclear 
waste that has been generated by our civilian reactors.
  This has not been done, even though we have a law that says it should 
be done. There is a permanent repository that is located in the State 
of Nevada.
  The citizens of that State have serious reservations about accepting 
high-level waste in their State, and as a consequence, they have 
managed, through various bills over the years, to prevent that facility 
from going forward.
  The amendment that I have before the body today would authorize a 
pilot program through the Department of Energy, on a competitive basis 
and its being consent-based by State, to allow interim storage at one 
or more facilities.
  The money would come from the nuclear waste fund from which we have 
collected over $15 billion. This amendment would not preclude Yucca 
Mountain, in any way, from being the permanent repository.
  It would allow any State in the Nation that wished to submit a 
proposal to the Secretary of Energy within 120 days, if my amendment 
were to become law; then, on a competitive basis, the Secretary of 
Energy, after holding public hearings, would make a determination that 
one or more sites in the country could accept this waste on an interim 
basis.
  I think this is a good amendment. It would cut the Gordian knot that 
has constrained us for over 30 years, and if we were to be allowed to 
vote on it, I am absolutely certain the House would pass it.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green), my cosponsor on the minority side.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and my good Texas friend.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment and will place my 
full statement into the Record.
  The amendment I am offering with my friend Congressman Joe Barton 
would authorize the Energy Department to start a pilot nuclear waste 
program.
  Congress, back in 1982, passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 
directing DOE and NRC to open a permanent repository for our Nation's 
spent nuclear fuel. Over three decades later, America is still without 
a repository, leaving tens of thousands of nuclear waste vulnerable to 
attacks of terror and other catastrophes.
  The reasons behind this failure are well-known, and it is imperative 
that this Congress and the administration act to open a safe and 
permanent storage facility. Until that day, we must

[[Page 11683]]

find interim storage to ensure that the 70,000 tons of spent fuel 
sitting in our Nation's nuclear plants are safe from harm's way.
  The pilot program authorized in this amendment would be paid for by 
funds already available in the nuclear waste fund and would direct DOE 
to open a pilot facility only after it was found to be safe by NRC, has 
gained the consent of the State's Governor, each unit of local 
government within the jurisdiction and affected Indian tribes, and 
heard from the general public.
  Given the nearly $30 billion available in the nuclear waste fund, the 
growing inventory of spent nuclear fuel, and the inherent hazards 
connected with nuclear waste, I urge my colleagues to join with 
Congressman Barton and me to authorize this program.
  Madam Chairman, I am also in agreement. I agree with withdrawing the 
amendment, but somewhere, this Congress needs to address our nuclear 
waste disposal and storage issue.
  I thank my colleague for the time.
  Mr. BARTON. Madam Chair, could I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time at this 
point in time.
  The CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Idaho continue to reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I just want to say, it is my understanding 
the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment, so we are not going 
to have to insist on the point of order.
  I just want to assure both my friends from Texas that this is an 
issue that this body needs to deal with. We just had two votes in the 
last hour that were a pretty good indication that this body supports 
long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste.
  It is an issue that we have seen linger in this Congress now, well, 
for the last number of decades. It needs to be resolved. I am one that 
believes, as you do, I think--I know--that the authorizing committee 
needs to deal with this forthwith; and I want to give the assurance to 
you and all of our colleagues that, as the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, I want to continue to work on this issue on a 
bipartisan basis.
  For me, I have got two nuclear plants in my district. Both 
facilities, in fact, have run out of room in their pools. They are 
going to be storing it on-site.
  We have got a number of sites around the country that are closed at 
this point, and they are needing to send their high-level nuclear waste 
to one safe place. That is what the Yucca Mountain bill did that we 
passed, that President Reagan signed into law back in the eighties.
  There is a lot of discussion, particularly on the Senate side, on an 
interim storage site. I know that some States like Texas would very 
much like to participate in such a program. My concern with that 
approach is this, that I don't want to see that move without a 
permanent, full-time site like Yucca be left in the ditch, that, in 
fact, we might see, ultimately, the two combined.
  That is not an approach that we are going to deal with on this 
appropriation bill but, rather, an authorization bill that certainly I 
would like to see happen. I know that the chairman of that 
subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus, is on board with, very much, the same 
thoughts. I would like to think that in the next Congress, when we have 
got some new faces perhaps on both sides of the House and the Senate, 
that we will be able to move a bipartisan bill to, in fact, deal with 
both long-term and short-term in terms of interim, and I look forward 
to being a party to try and get those two groups together.
  So I would ask the two gentlemen from Texas, particularly you, Mr. 
Barton, if you would withdraw the amendment knowing that we will, in 
fact, deal with this on another day, not today.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Idaho continue to reserve a point 
of order?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. BARTON. Madam Chair, let me reiterate, before I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw this amendment, that, one, it is obviously 
bipartisan. Two, I think it would pass the House overwhelmingly, 
because, as the chairman of the full committee just said, we have had 
two votes in the last hour that were 5-1 in favor of disposing of high-
level waste. I would say you could say those were votes in favor of 
disposing of it at Yucca Mountain, but certainly we have the votes for 
a permanent repository.
  The amendment before the body at this moment is a pilot program. It 
is for interim storage. It in no way would preclude any effort to fund 
and develop the permanent repository at Yucca. And if the State of 
Nevada wanted to, they could compete for the interim storage and I 
think, in all probability, might decide to do so.
  So I would hope that sometime in this Congress through the 
appropriation process with the other body or, as the full committee 
chairman has just promised, in the next Congress through the normal 
regular order authorization process that we deal both with interim 
storage and permanent storage.
  And I think I have the chairman's commitment to do that. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. I look forward to working with you on both of those 
accounts and move it to regular order through the authorization 
process. Certainly that is an issue that I want to see our committee 
deal with in the next Congress for sure.
  Mr. BARTON. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the subcommittee 
chairman, Mr. Simpson, for his courtesy and his staff's courtesy, the 
ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, the full committee, Mr. Rogers and his 
staff.
  I will submit a letter for the Record from the Governor of Texas 
dated July 3 in support of my amendment.

                                               The State of Texas,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                     July 3, 2014.
       Dear Texas Congressional Delegation: After President Obama 
     abandoned any further development of Yucca Mountain and 
     Congress ceased all funding in 2011, the country must look 
     for new solutions to the long-term issue of safe and secure 
     handling of high level radioactive waste (HLW). Early in 2013 
     the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it was looking 
     into alternative, permanent disposal solutions to replace the 
     proposed storage facility at Yucca Mountain. By its own 
     estimations, a permanent HLW disposal solution will not be 
     available until 2048.
       An amendment proposed by Congressman Joe Barton authorizes 
     the Secretary of Energy to conduct a pilot program that would 
     provide interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and HLW, with 
     the priority for storage given to spent nuclear fuel located 
     on sites without an operating nuclear reactor. This option 
     could demonstrate how this waste can be transported and 
     stored in a secure and viable manner, providing a step toward 
     a long-term solution to this ongoing issue.
       With or without a long-term solution for disposing of HLW, 
     implementation of interim facilities is needed. I believe it 
     is time for the Congress to act and ensure that the United 
     States has a safe and secure solution for HLW, and I support 
     this effort by Congressman Barton.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Rick Perry,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. BARTON. Madam Chair, I would, at this point in time, ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the Barton-Green amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any 
     executive

[[Page 11684]]

     fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except in 
     accordance with Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet 
     Performance, dated May 24, 2011.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from New 
York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a 
Memorandum on Federal Fleet Performance that requires all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles, such 
as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31, 2015.
  My amendment echoes the Presidential Memorandum by prohibiting funds 
in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act from being used to lease or 
purchase new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the President's 
memorandum.
  This amendment has been supported by the majority and minority on 
appropriations bills eight times over the past few years, and I hope it 
will receive similar support today.
  Our transportation sector is by far the largest reason we send $600 
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing 
costs. But America doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of 
oil for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist today that, 
when implemented broadly, will allow any alternative fuel to be used in 
America's automotive fleet.
  The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty 
vehicles in America. According to GSA, there are over 660,000 vehicles 
in the Federal fleet. So, by supporting a diverse array of vehicle 
technologies in our Federal fleet, we will encourage development of 
domestic energy resources, including biomass, natural gas, agricultural 
waste, hydrogen, renewable electricity, methanol, and ethanol.
  When I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they diversified 
their fuel by greatly expanding their use of ethanol. When people drove 
to a gas station, they saw what a gallon of gasoline would cost and 
what an equivalent amount of ethanol would cost and could decide which 
was better for them.
  I want the same choices for Americans. That is why the gentlewoman 
from Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and I have submitted a bill which 
would provide for every fuel car built in America to be a flex-fuel 
car, which would cost less than $100 per car. If they can do this in 
Brazil, we can do it here. We can educate people on using alternative 
fuels and let consumers decide which is best for them.
  So, in conclusion, expanding the role these resources play in our 
transportation economy will help break the leverage over Americans held 
by foreign government-controlled oil companies, and it will increase 
our Nation's domestic security and protect consumers from price spikes 
and shortages in the world oil markets.
  I ask that my colleagues support the Engel amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I am willing to accept this amendment, and I thank the 
gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for doing that.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used--
       (1) to implement or enforce section 430.32(x) of title 10, 
     Code of Federal Regulations; or
       (2) to implement or enforce the standards established by 
     the tables contained in section 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) with 
     respect to BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandescent 
     reflector lamps, and ER incandescent reflector lamps.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from Texas 
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, today's amendment is to maintain current 
law.
  Since the passage in 2007 of the Energy Security Act, I have heard 
from tens of thousands of constituents about how the language of the 
2007 Energy Independence and Security Act takes away consumer choice 
when deciding which types of lightbulbs to purchase and place in their 
homes.
  While the government has passed energy efficiency standards in other 
realms over the years, never have they moved the bar so high and 
lowered the standard so drastically. It is to a point where technology 
is still years away from making lightbulbs that are compliant with the 
law at a price point the average American can afford.
  Opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language does not 
ban the incandescent bulb. I would stipulate that that is true. But it 
does ban the sale of the 100-watt, the 60-watt, and the 45-watt bulb.
  The replacement bulbs are far from economically efficient, even if 
they are energy efficient. A family living paycheck to paycheck can't 
afford to replace every single bulb in their house at $25 to $35 a 
bulb, even if those bulbs do last 20 years. And 20 years from now, who 
knows if the technology is going to change again, and maybe the 
Congress will have them change their lightbulbs again.
  The economics of the lightbulb mandate are only part of the story. 
With the expansion of Federal powers undertaken by President Obama and 
the Democrats in Congress during the first 2 years of the Obama 
administration, Americans realized just how far the Constitution's 
Commerce Clause has been manipulated from its original intent. The 
lightbulb mandate is a perfect example of this.
  The Commerce Clause was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a 
limitation on Federal authority, not a catchall nod to allow for any 
topic to be regulated by Washington that Washington felt was in the 
people's best interest. Indeed, it is clear that the Founding Fathers 
never intended this clause to be used to allow the Federal Government 
to regulate and pass mandates on consumer products that do not pose a 
risk to health or safety.
  The Congress should be on the side of the average American. The 
Congress should be on the side of the consumer. The Congress should be 
on the side of consumer choice. If new, energy-efficient lightbulbs 
save money and are better for the environment, we should trust the 
American people to make the choice on their own to move toward these 
bulbs. We should not force these bulbs on the American people.

                              {time}  1615

  The bottom line is, the Federal Government has no business taking 
away the freedom of Americans to choose whatever they wish to put in 
their homes.
  I will add that recently lightbulb manufacturers in this country have 
claimed that because of the stopgap provision in the 2007 law, if we 
continue to prevent the Department of Energy from promulgating rules 
pursuant to these provisions, the manufacturers will be forced to stop 
manufacturing compliant incandescent bulbs. But this is an argument to 
repeal the 2007 language in its entirety, not to force its 
implementation. We should not allow a stopgap trigger in the law to 
extort us from allowing bad policy to move forward.
  This exact amendment has been accepted for the past 3 years by voice 
vote and has been included in the annual appropriations legislation, 
signed into law by President Obama each year since its first inclusion. 
It allows consumers to continue to have a choice. It allows consumers 
to continue to have a say about what they put in their homes. It is 
common sense. It is time we trust average Americans.

[[Page 11685]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I oppose this rider, which would block the 
Department of Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy 
efficiency standards for lightbulbs. This rider was a bad idea 3 years 
ago when it was first offered, and it is even more unsupportable today.
  Every claim made by proponents of this rider has been proven wrong. 
Mr. Burgess told us that the energy efficiency standards would ban 
incandescent lightbulbs. That has been simply false. You can go to the 
store today and see shelves of modern energy-efficient incandescent 
lightbulbs that meet the standard. They are the same as the old bulbs, 
except that they last longer, use less electricity, and save consumers 
money.
  We have heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict 
consumer choice. We even heard it again a minute ago. Well, if you have 
shopped for lightbulbs lately, you know this isn't true. Modern 
incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and LEDs of every 
shape, size, and color are now available. Consumers have never had more 
choice. The efficiency standards spurred innovation that dramatically 
expanded options for consumers.
  Critics of the efficiency standard claimed that they would cost 
consumers money. In fact, the opposite is true. When the standards are 
in full effect, the average American family will save about $100 every 
year. That is $13 billion in savings nationwide every year. But this 
rider threatens those savings. That is why the Consumer Federation of 
America and the Consumers Union oppose this anti-consumer amendment.
  Here is the reality: the 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards 
for lightbulbs were enacted with bipartisan support, and they continue 
to enjoy overwhelming industry support.
  U.S. manufacturers are already meeting the efficiency standards. The 
effect of this rider is to allow foreign manufacturers to sell old, 
inefficient lightbulbs in the United States that violate these 
efficiency standards. That is unfair to domestic manufacturers who have 
invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make efficient bulbs 
that meet the standards. That is following our law.
  Why on Earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign 
manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalizes U.S. manufacturers who 
are following our laws?
  But it gets even worse. The rider now poses an additional threat to 
U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 energy bill required the 
Department of Energy to establish updated lightbulb efficiency 
standards by January 1, 2017. It also provided that if final updated 
standards are not issued by then, a more stringent standard of 45 
lumens per watt automatically takes effect. Incandescent lightbulbs 
currently cannot meet this backstop standard. This rider blocks DOE 
from issuing the required efficiency standards and ensures that the 
backstop will kick in. Ironically, it is this rider that could 
effectively ban the incandescent lightbulb.
  The Burgess rider directly threatens existing lightbulb manufacturing 
jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois. It would stifle innovation 
and punish companies that have invested in domestic manufacturing. This 
rider aims to reverse years of technological progress only to kill 
jobs, increase electricity bills for our constituents, and worsen 
pollution.
  There is nothing in the Constitution that says that this rider makes 
sense, despite the arguments we have heard from the proponent of this 
rider.
  It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology. It is time to 
listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency 
advocates who all argue that this rider is harmful.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Burgess lightbulb rider, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I think columnist George Will said it best 
back in December of 2007 when the Energy Independence and Security Act 
passed. He said: Look, the United States Congress has two jobs--defend 
the borders and deliver the mail, and instead, they have spent their 
time outlawing Thomas Edison's greatest invention.
  I urge Members to support the amendment and yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Ellison

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any person whose 
     disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in 
     section 2313(c)(1) of title 41, United States Code, in the 
     Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System 
     include the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from 
Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, today I am offering an amendment that is 
very simple. Basically, it is one of those issues that I think both 
conservatives and liberals and Republicans and Democrats ought to be 
able to get together and agree on. And that is, if a hardworking 
American earns a penny, they ought to get that penny.
  So what the amendment does, it says that if there is a Federal 
contractor who has a demonstrated, recorded, proven history of wage 
theft, is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, then they will 
not be able to participate in this appropriation.
  This amendment addresses a very serious problem. I would like to 
bring to the House's attention that the Economic Policy Institute found 
that in total, the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per 
year in unpaid wages, representing about 15 percent of their earned 
income. Another report by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee of the United States Senate revealed that 32 percent of the 
largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied 
against Federal contractors. Similarly, a National Employment Law 
Project study found that about 21 percent of Federal contract workers 
were not paid overtime, and 11 percent were forced to work off the 
clock.
  Now, we might debate taxes. We might debate how high the minimum wage 
should be. But I know this House, this body, as a whole, believes that 
hardworking people should get the money that they have worked for.
  Also, the Federal Government, the government is the largest spender 
in the world, I think, when you add it all up. And anyone who would 
want a contract with the Federal Government should be a contractor who 
is willing to uphold the best, most ethical business standards.
  We, as a body, should appropriate our money to those businesses that 
believe in paying the workers on time, no matter what that agreed 
amount of money is.
  Madam Chair, let me just conclude by saying that I think this is an 
important amendment. I urge adoption. And as we, as a body, work hard 
to provide opportunity for all Americans, particularly those who work 
for Federal contractors, I think one thing we can do is to support this 
amendment today and send an important signal that a penny worked for is 
a penny that must be paid.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

[[Page 11686]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated to provide funds to any entity (as defined in 
     section 101 of title 11 of the United States Code) that 
     commenced a case under title 11 of the United States Code in 
     fiscal year 2013, in fiscal year 2014, or before the date 
     such funds would otherwise be so obligated in fiscal year 
     2015.

  Mr. BURGESS (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from Texas and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
protect taxpayers from losing any more money, since the Department of 
Energy's track record of granting money to entities teetering on the 
brink of bankruptcy is far from stellar.
  Since President Obama ramped up spending at the Department of Energy 
in order to push a political agenda, the Department of Energy, first 
under Secretary Chu and now under Secretary Moniz, has lost hundreds of 
millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars that the taxpayer 
will never see again.
  Moreover, over the past decade, the Department of Energy has given 
the United States Enrichment Corporation billions of taxpayer funds, 
with absolutely nothing to show for it. Last year, we discussed the 
funding that was earmarked for the United States Enrichment Corporation 
in this very appropriations bill, the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill. And this body was given assurances, assurances that, first off, 
this would be the last installment of Federal funding for USEC and, 
second, that USEC was now doing a stellar job and was nearing 
completion of the tests being done at its American Centrifuge Project 
facility and that the concerns over the loss of taxpayer funds were 
overblown and unwarranted.
  Madam Chairman, unfortunately, both of those assertions have proven 
to be untrue. Not only does the underlying bill contain an additional 
$96 million for the United States Enrichment Corporation, but that 
corporation can no longer be considered to be on solid financial 
footing, having declared bankruptcy earlier this year.
  So it begs the question, why are Republicans in this body providing 
earmarked funds for bankrupt companies? When the Department of Energy 
took over operations at the American Centrifuge Project, through its 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, many of us had high hopes of how the 
facility would be run in the future. But those hopes were dashed when 
the Department of Energy announced that the United States Enrichment 
Corporation would continue to operate the facility as a subcontractor, 
essentially maintaining the status quo, a status quo that historically 
had proven to be inoperable.
  Along with now-Senator Markey, I requested the Government 
Accountability Office to look into the Department of Energy's actions 
with regard to the United States Enrichment Corporation, providing 
uranium tails to the company while simultaneously harming the uranium 
mining industry in many of our Western States.
  The Government Accountability Office, in the first of two reports 
this month, found the Department of Energy had been taking steps with 
regard to the United States Enrichment Corporation that far exceeded 
its legal authority.

                              {time}  1630

  Those of us who have been involved with this issue were hardly 
surprised by this conclusion, but the report served to undermine all of 
the claims that supporters of the United States Enrichment Corporation 
have made about the national importance of the American Centrifuge 
Project facility.
  Now, the Government Accountability Office is scheduled to release its 
second report later this summer, which concerns the claims that the 
United States Enrichment Corporation's existence is necessary for 
national security.
  It is clear, however, from the first GAO report, that the Department 
of Energy's actions have been taken in direct contradiction to Federal 
law. This must stop. Any further taxpayer money placed in this 
direction is sure to be wasted.
  Madam Chairman, the Department of Energy's track record of giving 
money to bankrupt companies is abysmal. The House today has a chance to 
stand up for the American taxpayer and prevent further funding from 
being provided to companies that simply cannot deliver.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.
  I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:

       ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be 
     in order if changing existing law.''

  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I do.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. BURGESS. I would merely point out that we have had this 
discussion on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill year in and year 
out on this issue.
  The fact of the matter is the Department of Energy wasted money when 
it came to Solyndra. We should not support the additional wasting of 
money simply because it is nuclear energy that is involved at this 
point.
  Realistically, this should have been stopped last year or the year 
before. The fact that it has not been stopped is not something that we, 
as Republicans, can continue to justify. This activity needs to cease. 
To defeat this measure on a technicality is the wrong approach.
  I would encourage the Chair to allow this amendment to come forward 
to a floor vote. I believe it would be supported by the Members.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a 
determination of whether certain entities have commenced bankruptcy 
cases.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of 
     its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of 
     its principals:
       (A) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 
     (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation 
     of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the 
     submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, 
     forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, 
     making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal 
     criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or

[[Page 11687]]

       (B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated above in subsection (A); or
       (C) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, this amendment is identical to other 
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every 
appropriations bill that has been considered under an open rule during 
this Congress.
  It is also identical to the amendment that I offered to last year's 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which passed by a voice vote.
  My amendment expands the list of parties with whom the Federal 
Government is prohibited from contracting due to serious misconduct on 
the part of those contractors. It is my hope that this amendment 
remains uncontroversial--as it has been--and, again, will be passed 
unanimously by the House.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAYSON. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. We are happy to accept this amendment.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to regulate activities identified in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (C) of section 404(f)(1) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)(1)(A), (C)) or to 
     limit the exemption in section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)(1)(A)) to 
     established or ongoing operations.

  The 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. LaMALFA. Madam Chairman, we have heard quite a bit about the EPA 
and the Army Corps of Engineers' overreach regarding waters of the 
United States. In a preview of just how little regard these entities 
have for Congress and the law, they have already drastically 
overstepped the limits Congress has placed on their power.
  Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act explicitly exempts certain 
activities from regulation, including normal agricultural activities 
like plowing fields, planting and harvesting crops, and maintaining 
irrigation and drainage ditches. Congress made these exemptions clear 
when the act was passed.
  Unfortunately, the EPA and Army Corps are, as usual, using creative 
interpretations of the law in an effort to regulate activities that are 
clearly exempt from their control. We have seen Federal agencies go 
after farmers simply for changing crops or improving their irrigation 
systems, with absolutely no authority to do so.
  The exemption on ag activities, in section 404(f)(1) of the Clean 
Water Act, reads as follows:

       Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, such 
     as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting 
     for the production of food, fiber, and forest products or 
     upland soil and water conservation practices is not 
     prohibited or otherwise subject to regulation.

  Madam Chair, this is as clear as it can be. These activities are 
exempt from regulation. However, according to the corps permitting 
guidance to farmers and ranchers, to qualify, these exempt activities: 
must be a part of an established ongoing farming, silviculture, or 
ranching operation. An operation is no longer established when the area 
on which it was conducted has been converted to another use or has lain 
idle.
  Again, the Army Corps' own words:

       If the current use of a property is for growing corn, the 
     exemption does not apply if future activities would involve 
     conversion to an orchard or vineyards.

  Nowhere in the law does a requirement that farm work be ``ongoing'' 
or ``established'' exist. Nowhere in the law is a prohibition on 
changing crops mentioned.
  Madam Chair, my amendment simply directs the corps to follow the law 
as Congress has written it, to stop attempting to expand its reach 
based on fictional authority. This House unanimously passed similar 
language to rein in the corps last year.
  Let us remind these agencies that we write the law, not unknown 
Federal bureaucrats, and that the law applies not just to average 
Americans, but to the Federal Government as well.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
because it is not necessary. It does not achieve the stated intent. 
Contrary to a lot of misinformation--and much of it deliberate, I am 
afraid--that has been circulated, farmers do not need a Corps of 
Engineers or even an EPA permit to dig a ditch, to till a field, to 
create a reservoir, or to irrigate their fields.
  Congress clarified this issue more than 35 years ago when it passed 
the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act. Those amendments 
established a well-reasoned and practical approach that ensured far-
reaching protections over the Nation's waters, but also ensured that 
practical day-to-day operations of farmers, of ranchers, of foresters, 
and a host of other industrial sectors could continue without the need 
for Clean Water Act regulation.
  Section 404(f) of the 1977 law created a list of ``activity-based'' 
exemptions for normal farming, ranching, and forestry activities, but 
it also included safeguards to ensure that these exempted activities 
were not exploited by large-scale commercial interests.
  I would also like to register my strong opposition to other attacks 
against the Clean Water Act that are already a part of this bill, and I 
refer specifically to sections 105 and 106.
  Section 105 blocks the Corps of Engineers from updating regulations 
pertaining to the definitions of ``fill material'' for the purposes of 
the Clean Water Act, and section 106 prevents the corps from finalizing 
its proposed regulation clarifying Federal jurisdiction.
  Section 105 protects the work of some attorneys in the George W. Bush 
administration, who found a clever way to allow mining waste to be 
dumped into rivers and streams without a rigorous environmental review 
process.
  They simply changed the definition of fill material to include 
``rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, 
and overburden from mining or other excavation activities.''
  What had once been a permit process intended to allow quick approval 
of construction projects like bridges and roads--where raising the 
bottom elevation of a water body or converting an area into dry land 
was unavoidable--it became a green light for mountaintop mining 
removal, where an entire mountaintop could be dumped into a stream 
valley; and since this clever change in definition occurred, more than 
2,000 miles of streams have been buried under mining waste.
  The environmental and health consequences have been shocking. People 
living near mountaintop-removed mines are 50 percent more likely to die 
of cancer and 42 percent more likely to be born with birth defects 
compared with other people in Appalachia.
  Section 106 is another outrage that has been facilitated by interest 
groups with deliberately misleading statements.
  The corps does need to clarify its authority because there is a lot 
of confusion as a result of two Supreme Court

[[Page 11688]]

rulings, and the proposed rule clarifies that.
  Most seasonal and rain-dependent streams are protected. Wetlands near 
rivers and streams are protected. Other types of waters will be 
evaluated through a case-specific analysis. That makes sense.
  The corps has encouraged recommendations from the public for how best 
to determine whether a water body has significant connection to 
downstream waters, but we have to bear in mind that 59 percent of all 
stream miles in the lower 48 States fall into the category of 
intermittent or ephemeral.
  They only exist for part of the year, yet they receive 40 percent of 
all individual wastewater discharges. More than 117 million Americans 
get some of their drinking water from those streams that don't flow 
year round.
  So including this rider to block the corps' rule will only ensure 
that the confusion continues and that these sources of drinking water 
remain at increased risk of pollution.
  With rising temperatures, more severe droughts, and climate change, 
protection of our waters and wetlands are more important than ever. We 
need clarity, not more confusion, and this amendment generates more 
confusion, and so it should be opposed.
  Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate the comments and thoughts from my colleague 
from Virginia there.
  That said, on this amendment, not the catchall on the whole bill 
here, we are sticking to the exemptions that have been provided for in 
the law by Congress for farming activities, and we do have the need for 
this amendment because the enforcement by the Army Corps is happening 
out in the field in my own district, even on these issues.
  We have a screen shot right here from the Army Corps' Web site that 
lists some of the things I mentioned earlier, as I said, that these 
activities must be part of an ongoing operation or that there cannot be 
a crop change without requirements put forth by the Army Corps, giving 
you permission or denying that permission.
  So it is, indeed, necessary because there is overzealous regulation 
and enforcement of something that doesn't exist in the law as passed 
duly by the Congress representing the people of the United States.

                              {time}  1645

  As I mentioned a bit earlier, once again, this House did unanimously 
pass similar language on this issue last year, so I would ask to have 
that support of the U.S. House once again to simply allow farmers to do 
what they would be doing ongoing and planning to do and have done for 
many generations all over this country except for a reinterpretation 
by, in a lot of cases, out-of-control bureaucrats that have a different 
agenda.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The 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. Garamendi

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Of the funds made available by title III under 
     the heading ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National 
     Nuclear Security Administration--Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation'', not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees (as defined in 
     section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code) a report 
     that includes an analysis of alternatives with respect to 
     using the existing infrastructure at the Savannah River Site 
     of the Department of Energy, including existing mixed oxide 
     facilities, to conduct an alternative method for meeting the 
     nuclear disposition requirements of the United States. Such 
     report shall include--
       (1) a full description of alternatives considered, 
     including not less than two proposals described in subsection 
     (b);
       (2) a comparison of the costs and benefits of each such 
     alternative, including an analysis of trade-offs among cost, 
     schedule, and performance objectives;
       (3) the identification of the cost and risk of critical 
     technology elements associated with each such alternative, 
     including technology maturity, integration risk, 
     manufacturing feasibility, and demonstration needs;
       (4) identification of the cost and risk of additional 
     capital asset and infrastructure capabilities required to 
     support production and certification of each alternative; and
       (5) a life-cycle cost estimate for the alternative selected 
     that details the overall cost, scope, and schedule planning 
     assumptions.
       (b) In order to obtain alternatives to analyze in the 
     report under subsection (a), the Secretary of Energy shall 
     issue a formal request for proposals for contractors to 
     submit a formal proposal for effective plutonium disposition 
     methods that are alternative to the mixed oxide process, 
     giving consideration to existing capabilities and 
     infrastructure at the Savannah River Site.

  Mr. GARAMENDI (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  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. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, during the fifties and sixties, we were 
engaged in what was known as the cold war. We could not build nuclear 
weapons fast enough, and we surely built a lot of them. Beginning in 
the eighties and on into the nineties, we got a little more sane. We 
and Russia and others became somewhat more sane about what to do with 
our nuclear weapons, and we began to dismantle many of the nuclear 
weapons we had, as did Russia.
  In the nineties, an agreement was reached between the United States 
and Russia on the disposition--that is, the ultimate disposition and 
disposal--of the unused, unnecessary plutonium that both the United 
States and Russia held in their various stockpiles. That was a good 
thing. You don't want this stuff lying around. You don't want people to 
get their hands on it, particularly terrorist organizations. So there 
was a common understanding between Russia and the United States on the 
disposal of this unused, unnecessary, and extraordinarily dangerous 
material. The United States undertook to do this in a facility in South 
Carolina known as the MOX facility, and we have been at it since the 
late nineties, putting together a facility.
  It hasn't gone well. In fact, it has gone very, very badly; and in 
the recent last 2 or 3 years, the administration has decided that this 
is not going to work and that the facility as designed should be put in 
cold storage and there should be a new way of dealing with this issue.
  This amendment would instruct the Department of Energy to undertake a 
very quick and, in my view, a very appropriate process of going out to 
those entities and businesses and others around this Nation that can 
find a way of disposing of this very dangerous plutonium, and do it 
quickly. It calls for a 6-month process in which the Department of 
Energy would ask for requests for proposals from qualified companies to 
dispose of this, including the company that presently does it, AREVA, a 
French company that is currently operating the facility, have them come 
forward with a redo of their proposal, can they do it, and other 
companies. I know of perhaps two that can come forward. Get this thing 
underway so we can once again carry out our commitment in a treaty with 
Russia to dispose of our plutonium material.
  This does not negate the South Carolina facility. In fact, it would 
hold the

[[Page 11689]]

South Carolina facility in place and probably lead to the continuation 
of that facility, perhaps in a new modality, to dispose of the 
plutonium. That is what it does. It short-circuits--that is, shortens--
the time in which the Department of Energy is already moving to do 
this.
  Under their present proposal, I would suggest it would probably be a 
decade before they decide what to do. But they need a kick in the 
pants, which this amendment does; get out there, go to the companies 
that know how to do this, and get it done. It is in the interest of the 
United States and in the interest of Russia to dispose of this 
unnecessary, unused plutonium. If we don't move forward this way, we 
are looking at a decade, in my estimation, a decade before the 
Department of Energy is willing to make a decision.
  So that is what the amendment does. I suspect I am going to get a 
point of order here, but I would like all of us to consider the 
alternative of not doing this. If we don't take a program such as I am 
proposing here, we are going to wind up with this thing just lingering 
out there, a huge fight with South Carolina saying we want to go 
forward with AREVA; AREVA is not working; on and on and on.
  So I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment and a foregoing of this 
point of order so we might, as the House of Representatives, take up 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  Madam Chairwoman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
on an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rules states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes, I do.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized on the point 
of order.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I guess I don't understand the suggested 
ruling. We are spending a pile of money here. We are going to spend, I 
don't know, some $12 billion on the path we are on. The bill itself 
proposes to spend money to keep this project going. The administration 
says we can't go, it is not working, don't do it.
  All my amendment does is to tell the Department of Energy, get on 
with what you need to do anyway; that is, figure out how to do this. It 
doesn't spend any more money. In fact, it would spend a whole lot less 
money than in the present drafting of this legislation, and it doesn't 
change law at all.
  All it does is it directs the Department of Energy to do something, 
and it specifies how it should be done. That doesn't change law. Well, 
this whole thing is a law, so the bill itself changes law. So this 
simply directs how they should carry out their action for which they 
already have money.
  Fine, avoid the issue. Let this thing linger, let it fester and rot, 
and do nothing. And wait 10 years with this plutonium there while the 
Department of Energy does what it does best which is to contemplate the 
future rather than getting things done.
  Now we will take up the point of order, and this amendment would fail 
on a point of order. I would suggest to anybody who cares to listen, 
this issue has to be dealt with. This amendment does not select a 
winner or loser and it doesn't change the fundamental underlying law 
that we have put in place.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The Chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the 
Secretary of Energy.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following.

     SEC. ___. SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS.

       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by 
     the Bureau of Reclamation to terminate, or implement, 
     administer, or enforce the termination of, the existing 
     Sacramento River Settlement Contracts before the resolution 
     of Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Jewell, et 
     al, (9th Cir. Case No. 0917661 and USDC E.D. Cal. Case No. 
     05-cv-01207-LJO-GSA) through decision, dismissal, withdrawal 
     or settlement.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order against this 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  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. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, this language in this amendment will hold 
the Sacramento River settlement contracts in place until issues 
associated with the litigation or renewal of the contracts are settled. 
Maintaining these contracts is critically important to the effective 
operation of the Central Valley Project and efficient delivery of water 
north and south of the delta.
  The settlement contracts are foundational to the CVP and provide 
vital stability that benefits the Bureau of Reclamation, agricultural 
and municipal and industrial water users, the environment, the 
California State water project and its beneficiaries.
  The language does not prejudice the disposition of the ongoing 
litigation; it simply ensures stability until such issues are resolved.
  The settlement contracts, originally entered into by the Bureau in 
1964 and renewed in 2005, allowed the United States to properly 
distribute the Sacramento River water rights and provide operational 
stability for the CVP. Without these contracts in place and full 
compliance with their terms, the underlying right to divert water from 
the Sacramento River will be called into question, potentially creating 
instability statewide. The settlement contractors would continue to 
divert water under their historic rights, but will begin to do so 
earlier in the year and during critical months. In addition, they would 
not be required to compensate the United States for any of the water 
they divert. This would cost the Treasury approximately $12 million in 
lost revenue.
  Moreover, the settlement contractors would no longer be obligated to 
schedule their water diversions with the U.S. This would result, at a 
minimum, in an inability to operate the CVP in an efficient manner, 
causing uncertainty and instability throughout the Central Valley 
Project and the State water project, which serve a combined 23 million 
people.
  Finally, the contract supplies available for diversion under the 
existing SRS contracts were assumed in all base and future studies used 
in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2008 biological opinion pertaining 
to the delta smelt.
  The Ninth Circuit recently confirmed the validity of that biological 
opinion, as urged by the U.S. and NRDC. Accordingly, continuing these 
contracts under their existing terms pending the final outcome of the 
NRDC v. Jewell litigation would have no adverse effect on delta smelt.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio continue to reserve her 
point of order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, I have great respect for my friend from the 
Sacramento Valley and the water users he represents, but I must rise in 
opposition to this amendment. However well-intentioned, it has two 
fatal flaws.

[[Page 11690]]

The first is that it is completely unnecessary. Second, it directly 
interferes with the Federal court's ability to administer the law.
  So let's start with the first one, the unnecessary part. It is true 
that the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in this 
pending litigation because these long-term Sacramento River contracts 
were signed on the basis of an invalidated biological opinion. But what 
my colleagues should know is that no party in this ongoing litigation 
is seeking to terminate water deliveries, nor is anybody asking for the 
immediate alteration or interruption of deliveries. The litigation has 
been going on for years, and my understanding is that there is no court 
action scheduled that could have any effect on water deliveries in the 
coming years.
  If the contracts are ultimately changed to protect California salmon 
fisheries, that would be many years down the line, and the Sacramento 
River contractors will have the opportunity to negotiate changes 
directly with the Interior Department in a public process. That is how 
it works.
  So this amendment puts us in a strange position of trying to bar the 
Bureau of Reclamation from terminating water deliveries that nobody has 
asked them to terminate in anticipation of a court order that nobody is 
seeking. It is completely unnecessary.

                              {time}  1700

  Second, this amendment interferes in a court case in a way that 
should worry all of us in this body. The amendment claims to be about 
preserving the status quo on the Sacramento River. That is all fine, 
but if that is the concern that contracts might be terminated--even 
though nobody is asking them to be terminated and they don't expire for 
another 30 years--why come to Congress?
  The Sacramento River contractors are represented by astute and 
capable lawyers who could easily go to the court and seek interim 
relief to do this, and yet they have not sought that relief. Instead, 
they have come here to the House floor asking to be treated differently 
than every other Central Valley Project contractor. Seeking a rider to 
circumvent a court case that is still in its very preliminary stages is 
no way to make public policy. In fact, I am not aware of Congress ever 
taking an extraordinary step like this.
  There have been many Endangered Species Act challenges to water 
contracts over the years in California. Never has a court simply 
vacated any contracts. In fact, even after finding the contracts 
invalid under the Endangered Species Act, courts have always given the 
agencies and the contractors time to do their work and renegotiate the 
terms without terminating anything in the interim. That is exactly what 
will happen in this case if we simply let the litigation play out, as 
we should.
  Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Contra Costa County (Mr. George Miller), who has been such a leader on 
California water for his 40 years in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding and thank him for reserving this time in opposition.
  I think the gentleman from California has made the point very 
clearly, this amendment is seeking to play by a set of rules that is 
different than any other contractor in the State, and also makes a 
point very clearly that there is no intent here by any of the parties 
to curtail these contracts in any immediate time or suggest that they 
be abandoned or they be found invalid, not at all. It is just a 
question of whether or not the basis on which they were determined to 
go forward, that biological opinion, has turned out not to be valid. So 
they are simply asking for a re-review of these contracts.
  What this amendment would say is that this group of contractors gets 
to play by a different set of rules than everybody else in the State. 
As we all know, those of us who are from California and many of our 
colleagues in Congress have learned over the years this is a very, very 
integrated system. It is a very complex system, and it has multiple 
claims on the water in the State, from farming, from technology, from 
communities, from manufacturing, from the chemistry, and from the 
environment, from recreational fishers, from commercial fishers, from 
an industry that is hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and 
thousands of employees.
  The question is are these contracts valid in light of the biological 
opinions. To say that they have been assumed in the biological opinions 
doesn't say that they have been reviewed. So this is just a question on 
this amendment to this legislation as to whether these people can take 
themselves outside of the judicial review, take themselves outside of 
the environmental considerations, take themselves outside of the 
economic considerations that no other water district, no other 
contractor gets to do.
  Certainly at a time when people are under such stress about the 
availability of water, it starts to look like a very special privilege 
to be able to be plucked out when everybody else is undergoing this 
kind of scrutiny, trying to figure out how we can make the most 
flexible system, a system that can respond to this very diverse 
California economy and to the needs of domestic households in a very 
serious drought and a drought that may continue in the years to come. 
Again, nobody has suggested that we abrogate these contracts simply to 
proceed under regular order.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I continue to reserve a point of order.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chairman, I yield, upon the heels of the 
statements by my bay area colleagues, 2 minutes of time to my colleague 
from the valley, Mr. Garamendi, who represents much of this area.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleagues on both 
sides of this question.
  I think it would be wise to really take a look at the language of the 
amendment. It basically says that none of the funds made available by 
this act may be used by the Bureau to terminate, to implement, 
administer, or enforce the termination. This is about the Bureau 
terminating. It simply says the Bureau cannot terminate the contract 
until this court case is settled.
  Is it necessary? It really depends what the Bureau intends to do. I 
would suspect that the Bureau probably would not move to terminate, but 
they could, in which case chaos ensues.
  There will be a settlement in this court case at some time in the 
future. We don't know when. It is a very complex case. It deals with 
biological opinions. It deals with the ESA. It deals with very complex 
biological circumstances of the fish in the delta. This amendment 
simply says the Bureau cannot terminate until the court case has been 
settled. That is it.
  Is it necessary? Well, it could be necessary. Therefore, this simply 
puts in place a requirement that would avoid chaos in the Central 
Valley Project. That is it.
  My colleagues with whom I normally stand side by side in protecting 
the rivers, I find myself on the opposite side because this amendment 
needs to be understood in its simplicity and in its potential 
importance. Therefore, I support the amendment.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, what time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  I appreciate my colleague additionally adding to that.
  I think in response to the amendment not being needed or setting a 
bad precedent, the stability that is so desperately needed for water 
delivery to the whole project is why we are doing this. It will have 
effect for 1 year or until the case is settled. These are ongoing 
contracts. We are not changing anything. It is not moving in any new 
direction here. But the instability that can be caused by an impending 
ruling or maybe a change of mind by the Bureau of Reclamation would 
cause much chaos, as my friend had suggested. This isn't an 
unreasonable amendment to

[[Page 11691]]

add to maintain the stability we need for an additional year.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties by requiring the Bureau to 
determine whether a decision constitutes a resolution.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I do.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I would like a ruling in opposition to 
that, because I think what we are talking about here does not change 
law. It changes nothing other than maintaining the direction we have. 
It is not requiring any action by the Bureau or Department of the 
Interior or any other government agency, nor prejudicing anything by 
the court, simply keeping what we have in place with the contracts and 
the stability that is needed.
  So I think the point of order is invalid with what the intention of 
this amendment is.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination as to what constitutes the resolution of a particular 
court case through a decision.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Huffman

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  For an additional amount for programs, projects, 
     and activities of the Bureau of Reclamation authorized under 
     the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act (title XVI of Public Law 102-575; 43 U.S.C. 
     390h et seq.), there is hereby appropriated, and the amount 
     otherwise provided by this Act for ``Department of Energy--
     Energy Programs--Nuclear Energy'' is hereby reduced by, 
     $52,000,000.

  The 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. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, California and the rest of the West are 
facing a historic drought right now. Nearly 80 percent of California 
was under extreme drought conditions in June, and 36 percent of our 
State is in ``exceptional'' drought in that category, the highest 
category, in fact, on the U.S. Drought Monitor.
  Emergency water conservation plans are being adopted across the 
State, including many mandatory measures. Cities and counties are 
dealing with uncertain water supplies, farmers and ranchers are facing 
incredibly difficult decisions, and tribes and those who depend on 
healthy fisheries for their livelihood are facing shortages like they 
have never seen.
  Congress can't make it rain. What we can do is invest in drought-
resistant water supplies through smart, sustainable investments in 
conservation and water reuse, and that is what this amendment is all 
about.
  My amendment directs $52 million to the Bureau of Reclamation for 
title XVI water conservation and reuse projects. Through this program, 
Reclamation works across the West to support municipalities, farmers, 
fish and wildlife, and recreation through water-saving conservation, 
reuse, and recycling infrastructure projects.
  Although the Energy and Water bill before us today does fund the 
program, this drought is showing us that we have to do a lot more.
  California's State water board is stepping up. They made an $800 
million investment in water reuse projects earlier this year, but we on 
the Federal side should be able to add more to that. We should add $52 
million to combat this urgent problem in California and other Western 
States.
  This amendment is offset through a reduction in the Department of 
Energy's nuclear energy account. We have tough choices to make. I think 
we all understand that. Responding, however, to this drought should be 
a national priority.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I strongly oppose this ill-conceived 
amendment.
  This amendment would cut $52 million out of the Nuclear Energy 
Program. This is on top of an amendment that was adopted yesterday that 
already cuts $73 million out of the nuclear energy program.
  What I have heard for 2 days now is that climate change is a big 
issue. In fact, the drought in California and the West has been blamed 
on climate change. It may be true. I don't know. But if you believe 
that, then why are you attacking the one thing that can produce energy 
for this country in a carbon-free way? That makes no sense.
  So I strongly oppose this amendment. As I said, I understand my 
colleague's support for the title XVI program. Due to the request from 
the gentleman and many others within this Congress, funding for the 
title XVI program basically is at current rate while many other 
programs have been cut.
  We did this by balancing many priorities that the amendment would 
completely ignore. The amendment would cut, as I said, $52 million from 
nuclear energy. This is a 6 percent cut on top of the amendment 
yesterday. Accepting this amendment would be a 14 percent cut in 
nuclear energy.
  Again, if you really believe in climate change and that we have to 
address it, one of the major things that is going to address it is 
going to be nuclear energy. Well, I like wind and solar and all of 
those kind of things. They don't produce the energy for the base load 
that is necessary in this country, particularly in California.
  As I said, this is an ill-conceived amendment. Funding for nuclear 
research and development is a critical part of this recommendation 
support for a balanced energy portfolio, American manufacturing, and 
reduced reliance on foreign energy sources. Nuclear power currently 
generates 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, and it will continue 
to play a role in the future, I hope. Nuclear energy will be part of 
the energy mix in the future. America invented nuclear power, but now 
other nations are mimicking our companies' designs and building them 
entirely within their own borders.
  This amendment is bad policy, and I strongly oppose its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, we either believe that this critical 
drought in California and other Western States, the most extreme 
drought that many of us have seen in our lifetime, we either believe it 
is a national crisis and a national priority, or we don't.
  A few months ago, House Republicans put forward a bill that 
represented itself as a response to this drought, and yet it offered no 
immediate relief to the folks who are suffering in California.
  Instead, what it did is hack away at environmental laws and try to do 
some violence to 100 years of deference to State policy on water rights 
and otherwise pick winners and losers in ways that was not responsive 
to this drought.
  What this amendment offers, though, is something that can make an 
immediate difference. The water that we save through conservation, the 
water that we can save in the years ahead

[[Page 11692]]

through water recycling, is some of the firmest, most reliable, most 
cost-effective water that you can provide. It is one of the smartest 
investments you can make in a State like California.
  We need it to respond to this drought, and we need it to make our 
water supplies more reliable and resilient for future droughts, which 
we know are coming with more severity and more frequency.
  I will close by urging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this 
important amendment which does respond to the critical drought that is 
facing California and other Western States.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Huffman).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the study of the Missouri River Projects 
     authorized in section 108 of the Energy and Water Development 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (division C of 
     Public Law 111-8).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from 
Missouri and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, just turn on the news and you will see 
reports that highlight the need for a strong and resilient flood 
protection system as people along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers 
are bracing for potential floodings.
  These basins have faced major challenges over the past few years due 
to both extreme flooding and droughts. This devastation, combined with 
a sluggish economy and our aging inland waterways infrastructure, means 
that now, more than ever, we must be focused and responsible with 
taxpayer-funded river projects.
  My amendment would prohibit funding for the Missouri River Authorized 
Purposes Study, also known as MRAPS. This $25 million-earmarked study 
comes on the heels of a comprehensive $35 million, 17-year study that 
showed that the current authorized purposes are important and should be 
maintained.
  This Congress and this administration need to focus on protecting 
human life and property by maintaining the safety and soundness of our 
levees. We also must support the important commercial advantages 
provided to us by our inland waterways system.
  The Missouri River moves goods to market and is an important tool in 
both domestic and international trade. That is why the American 
Waterways Operators, the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, the 
Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Corn Growers support this 
amendment.
  This study puts in jeopardy not only the lower Missouri River, but 
also the flow of the Mississippi River, which could create devastating 
consequences for navigation and transportation, resulting in barriers 
for waterways operators, agriculture, and every product that depends on 
the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers to get to market.
  The current authorized uses of the Missouri River provide necessary 
resources and translate to continued economic stability not only for 
Missourians, but also for many Americans living throughout the Missouri 
and lower Mississippi River basins.
  This study is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. On this 
exact issue we have already spent 17 years and $35 million on hundreds 
of public meetings and extensive litigation. I offered identical 
language during our first debate on the fiscal year 2011 continuing 
resolution. That amendment passed by a vote of 245-176. The exact 
amendment was also offered and passed by a voice vote in 2012 by a vote 
of 242-168 in 2013, and again by voice vote in last year's debate.
  I appreciate my colleagues who offered their support and hope to have 
that support again.
  Madam Chair, there is no doubt in my mind that water resources 
receive too little funding. It is time for the Federal Government to 
refocus and reprioritize to create safer, more efficient infrastructure 
for our inland waterways and stop spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars 
unnecessarily.
  I ask my colleagues for support of this amendment and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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

       Page 59, after line 20, insert the following:
       Sec. 508.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to approve a liquefied natural gas export application 
     from a facility that would be supplied with or export 
     liquefied natural gas on foreign-flag vessels when an 
     application that would be supplied with or export liquefied 
     natural gas on American-flag vessels is pending.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  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. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I would hope my colleague from Idaho, 
after finishing the excellent explanation I have of this, would 
withdraw his point of order.
  This is about an extraordinary opportunity that the United States 
has. We have been blessed with a very significant supply of natural 
gas. We have the technology to obtain that gas, and we also are now 
looking at the possibility or the reality of exporting that natural gas 
in the liquefied natural gas form. A facility is already licensed and 
is in the process of nearing construction on the Texas coast.
  This amendment would actually replicate what was passed by the House 
of Representatives in 2006 and became law with President George W. 
Bush's signature, which basically said that if we are going to import 
natural gas, it must be imported on an American-flagged ship.
  We will soon be exporting liquefied natural gas, and this is the only 
step available to me in this forum to replicate what we did in 2006. 
Now we would at least take a step towards making sure that natural gas 
is exported on American-flagged ships.
  This is a big deal for the maritime industry of America. This is a 
big, big deal. Because if we fail to take steps along the way to secure 
the maritime industry, we will see it disappear.
  We have the Jones Act, and that is good, but the Jones Act has only 
held the very minimum. It is 82 ships now. Forty years ago, we had 
1,000 ships operating under the American flag, with American sailors 
and mariners.
  If we allow this amendment to go into place, it would simply require 
that the Department of Energy put in front of other applications those 
applications that have utilized American-flagged ships in the export of 
their liquefied natural gas.
  It sounds to me to be the right thing to do if you care about 
America. If you don't give a hoot about American sailors and American 
ships and the American maritime industry, then brush this aside with 
the point of order.
  Idaho isn't on the coast, but Idaho cares deeply, deeply about the 
export of American grain on American ships for programs such as Food 
for Peace and the Jones Act.
  This amendment would begin to secure the American maritime industry 
by simply saying to the Department of Energy: If you are going to 
approve an LNG export facility, then put first in line that export 
facility that is going to utilize American sailors, American crews, and 
American ships. If you care about this Nation's maritime industry, then 
you ought to be supporting this amendment and my next one, which goes 
in the same direction.

[[Page 11693]]

  So I would ask my colleague from Idaho, who controls this debate at 
this moment, to put aside his point of order and allow the House of 
Representatives to have a vote on whether they care--all 435 of us--
about the American maritime industry and this one little step in 
providing an opportunity for American-made ships, American sailors, 
American crews, and the American maritime industry to survive in a very 
hostile environment, where other countries, like China, and others, 
subsidize their maritime industry and have literally decimated the 
American maritime industry.
  Let's support Americans. Let's support our industry. Let's have this 
amendment come to a vote on the floor and let us all see whether we 
stand with the American Shipbuilding Council and the Navy League and 
others who do support this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve my point of order and claim the 
time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I don't usually do that, but since he 
challenged me directly, let me see if I have got this straight. We have 
a law that says if you are going to import natural gas, it has to be on 
an American-flagged ship. And now we want to put in a law that says if 
you export natural gas, it has to be on an American ship.
  So, as I understand it, if every other country adopted a law similar 
to this, according to their country, we could neither import nor export 
natural gas around this world. So while this might be a good law, 
seemingly, I don't see how it would actually be beneficial.
  The gentleman always has thoughtful amendments which always seem to 
be out of order.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XX1.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Of course I do.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. My colleague from Idaho correctly asked me a question: 
How does this work? Would this in fact stop the export of LNG?
  No, it absolutely would not. Other countries who want the LNG may or 
may not operate ships. The fact of the matter is it is going to take 
hundreds of ships to export this natural gas.
  The reality is that this amendment----
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will confine his remarks to the point of 
order.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I will take your admonition and continue on.
  How much time do I have to talk on the point of order?
  The CHAIR. This debate is not timed.
  The gentleman must confine his remarks to the merit of the point of 
order.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Did the Chairwoman say that the time is unlimited as 
long as I speak to the subject?
  The CHAIR. It is within the discretion of the Chair to entertain 
argument on a point of order.
  The gentleman may be heard on the point of order only.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We will come back at this in the proper way.
  The CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination of the flag status of vessels on pending export 
applications.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

                              {time}  1730


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. It is 
amendment No. 62.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to continue the study conducted by the Army Corps of 
     Engineers pursuant to section 5018(a)(1) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from 
Missouri and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, just last week, folks along the 
Missouri River were bracing for the river to possibly reach flood 
stage.
  Should the basin have received a few more inches of runoff, homes, 
farms, and businesses would have been inundated with devastating flood 
waters. While it appears the danger has subsided for now, these 
citizens are not in the clear and will have to remain prepared for the 
rest of the flood season. These recent events serve to highlight the 
importance of maintaining effective flood control infrastructure.
  Though it is one of our region's greatest resources, the Missouri 
River would produce extreme, erosive regular flooding and be mostly 
unfit for navigation, if not for the aggressive long-term management by 
the Army Corps of Engineers.
  Congress first authorized the Missouri River bank stabilization and 
navigation project, BSNP, in 1912, with the intention of mitigating 
flood risk and maintaining a navigable channel from Sioux City, Iowa, 
to the mouth in St. Louis.
  Though the BSNP's construction was completed in the 1980s, the corps' 
ability to make adjustments as needed remains crucial to this day.
  President Obama, in his fiscal year 2015 budget, requested $56 
million for the Missouri River Recovery Program, which primarily goes 
towards the funding of environmental restoration studies and projects.
  This funding dwarfs the insufficient $8.5 million that was requested 
for the entire operations and maintenance of the aforementioned BSNP. 
It is preposterous to think that environmental projects are more 
important than the protection of human life.
  I do not take for granted the importance of river ecosystems. I grew 
up near the Missouri River, as did many of the people I represent, yet 
we have reached a point in our Nation at which we value the welfare of 
fish and birds more than the welfare of our fellow human beings. Our 
priorities are backwards, Madam Chair.
  My amendment will eliminate the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration 
Plan, or MRERP, a study that has become little more than a tool of the 
environmentalists for the promotion of returning the river to its most 
natural state, with little regard for flood control, navigation, trade, 
power generation, or the people who depend on the Missouri River for 
their livelihoods.
  The end of the study will in no way jeopardize the corps' ability to 
meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. MRERP is one of no 
fewer than 70 environmental and ecological studies focused on the 
Missouri River.
  The people who have had to foot the bill for these studies, many of 
which take years to complete and are ultimately inconclusive, are the 
very people who have lost their farms, their businesses, and their 
homes.
  Our vote today will also show our constituents that this Congress is 
aware of the gross disparity between the funding for environmental 
projects and efforts and the funding for the protection of our 
citizens.
  This exact amendment has been passed by voice vote during debate in 
the last 3 fiscal year Appropriations bills, which were ultimately 
signed into law by President Obama. It is supported by the American 
Waterways Operators, the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, the 
Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Corn Growers Association.
  It is time for Congress to take a serious look at the water 
development

[[Page 11694]]

funding priorities, and it is time to send a message to the Federal 
entities that manage our waterways. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment and support our Nation's river communities and encourage 
more balance in Federal funding for water infrastructure and 
management.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues for their support of this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I have amendment No. 102 at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 59, after line 20, insert the following:
       Sec. 508.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to approve an application for the supply or export of 
     liquefied natural gas unless the Department of Energy has 
     consulted with the United States Maritime Administration on 
     the availability of United States-flag vessels to transport 
     the liquefied natural gas.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is deja vu. I reserve a point of order 
on the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  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. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, before we go to the point of order dance, 
which we seem to be pretty good at, I want to explain why this is an 
important step. It is not as strong as the previous issue I raised, but 
it is, nonetheless, a very, very important step in the process of how 
we are going to export our liquefied natural gas.
  As I said earlier, the United States is blessed with a very 
significant amount of natural gas. Many people raise the question about 
whether we should export it at all. That question is interesting, but 
moot because we are going to export it.
  We have already had one facility that has been approved and will be 
soon exporting gas. The question that this amendment addresses is: Will 
that gas be exported on American ships, with American flags, with 
American sailors?
  As I said with regard to the previous amendment that I brought up, 
this issue has already been resolved with regard to the importation of 
natural gas. We are now talking about the exportation of natural gas, 
and therefore, we would simply do the same thing we do with import--do 
it on American ships, with American sailors, with the American flag.
  There is a reason for that. I explained that earlier. It has to do 
with our maritime industry. It has to do with the safety of those 
ships. Let me just tell you that these ships carry an extraordinary 
amount of natural gas, and should there be an incident, then it could 
be extraordinarily dangerous in our ports. That is why the original law 
in 2006 was put in place.
  All this amendment does is to set small criteria for what already 
happens. The Department of Energy does consult with MARAD. They already 
do the consultation.
  This simply says: in that consultation, consider the American 
flagging of these ships. It doesn't set a requirement. It doesn't set 
new law. It simply says: when you consult, Mr. Secretary of Energy, 
with MARAD, then consider the American flagging of these ships. That is 
it--nothing more.
  I have got to tell you that this is important stuff, and that is why 
the Navy League and that is why the Shipbuilders Council and, as I 
said, others--I don't have their letters with me today--have said in 
their letter--and I will read this paragraph--that one proposed 
amendment would require the Department of Energy, DOE, to consult with 
MARAD on the availability of U.S.-flagged vessels in processing 
applications for the export of liquefied natural gas, LNG.
  That is it. They support this. Why? Because they see the opportunity 
for the maritime industry to do in the export what is required in the 
import. That is it. How this could be ruled out of order, I don't 
understand, but when that opportunity comes, I intend to take that up 
also.
  Why don't we vote? As Members of this House, why don't we vote on 
whether we support our maritime industry or not?
  I yield the remaining time to my colleague from the great State of 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would just like to thank the gentleman for 
offering his amendment.
  Even though it is subject to a point of order, I think you are 
drawing attention to the importance of the U.S. maritime industry, and 
this burgeoning opportunity is extraordinarily important.
  I just wanted to commend the gentleman for that, and I know how hard 
you fight for our ports and for our maritime community. Let's find a 
way to do this somehow.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I don't know what more to say here. The points of 
order are useful, I suppose, but not to me.
  Madam Chair, to this issue, I would love to see a vote on the House 
floor on whether we really support our maritime industry, on whether we 
really support our sailors or not.
  This is about as minimal an amendment as I could imagine, and I am 
almost embarrassed in bringing something so weak before this floor on 
something so important as the future of our maritime industry.
  I don't know that I have any choice, but to at least try with this 
small step to bring before the House an amendment that would really 
help our industries.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve my point of order, 
and I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, the gentleman brings up an interesting 
subject, as the gentlewoman from Ohio said, and it is something that I 
would hope he would continue to work on through the appropriate 
channels. There are problems that may exist with his proposal here, and 
this is not the right place to do it, on the appropriations bill.
  The amendment would prevent the Department of Energy from approving 
an application for liquefied natural gas export, unless the Department 
has consulted with the U.S. Maritime Administration on the availability 
of U.S.-flagged vessels to transport the liquefied natural gas. The 
Department does not have nor are applicants for LNG export currently 
required to provide information on which vessels will be used for 
transportation.
  In fact, shipping companies are separate and distinct from companies 
applying for export licenses, and assessing the shipping requirements 
for LNG is not within the DOE's current realm of technical expertise. 
The reality is that there are a few, if any, U.S.-flagged vessels 
capable of carrying LNG at this point.
  I know the gentleman would like to change that, and I agree with him 
on that, but we need to do it through the proper channels. We need to 
do it through legislation that, I understand, the gentleman is probably 
working on now through the authorizing committees.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional requirements.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I do, Madam Chair.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized.

[[Page 11695]]


  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, keeping in mind your admonition that I 
speak to the point of order and not to the underlying amendment, I 
don't believe this changes any existing law; although, the entire bill 
changes existing law.
  This amendment speaks to one part of what already takes place, and 
that is that the Department of Energy does consult with MARAD on this 
subject matter. This amendment simply says that the Department, in that 
consultation, shall consider the issue of availability of American-
flagged crude-LNG tankers. It doesn't say you can't go forward. You can 
go forward. It doesn't say anything about that. It simply says that, in 
that consultation, take into account this simple issue.
  With regard to the point of order, the amendment that preceded my 
attempt with this amendment did, in fact, change law, but it was not 
ruled out of order.
  Now, I accept the fact that I can't have it my way. In fact, I am one 
of seven children, and I have never really had it my way. But this is 
not a substantive or even a minor change in law compared to what 
preceded this amendment.
  Okay. I know I am going to lose this one, but I am not going to give 
up on this issue. I appreciate the support of the chair on building 
American LNG tankers, and we will bring that to the appropriate 
committee at the appropriate time.
  In the meantime, Madam Chair, I think you are about to make a ruling.

                              {time}  1745

  The CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The Chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the 
Department of Energy to consult with the U.S. Maritime Administration.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Stockman

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:

     SEC.___. ENERGY LOAN PROGRAM.

       No funds made available by this Act may be used for the 
     Department of Energy's Loan Program Office.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from Texas 
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chair, we have seen, as you get on the plane you 
fly into San Jose, Madam Chairman, as you fly and drive south, you will 
see a huge building which was built with taxpayer money. This building 
is known as Solyndra, and the assets that were contained within were 
sold to the Chinese for 10 cents on a dollar. So our money, our 
taxpayer dollars, went to a program which failed.
  Again and again, you see the Energy Department investing and calling 
winners and losers; and I, for one, want to see a stop to the money 
that flows from the taxpayers into failed, nonproductive industries.
  This amendment simply eliminates the funding for a program which has 
already been demonstrated as an embarrassment, not just to our 
government, but actually to the administration. I think that, quite 
frankly, it is a simple amendment, and it would do great justice to the 
American taxpayers and would do great justice to America if we stop 
funding the Chinese technology through ``gimme'' loan programs and 
selling our assets at 10 cents on a dollar.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I rise strongly to oppose the 
amendment of my friend. The funds my colleague seeks to remove are 
administrative costs that the Department of Energy needs to conduct 
oversight of its existing loan portfolio.
  The recent loan guarantee to create the first new nuclear facilities 
in over 30 years at the Vogtle plant in Georgia will create thousands 
of jobs and will need oversight to ensure funds are spent properly.
  In April, the Department made available $8 billion of loan guarantees 
to accelerate advanced fossil energy technologies on the cusp of 
development. These loan guarantees, among others, need administrative 
support for decades to come.
  Without those administrative costs, the Department would not be able 
to monitor risk, manage projects, or provide the proper financial 
analysis that a loan guarantee needs. These activities are essential to 
ensure that taxpayer funds are protected in the existing loan 
portfolio.
  For these reasons, Madam Chairman, I cannot support our colleague's 
amendment, and I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chair, I respect my colleague, and I think he has 
some valid points; however, we repeat this mistake over and over again 
when we invest in failed projects that continually end up costing the 
taxpayers money and then we end up selling it to a Third World or some 
other country, and our taxpayers are losing money.
  I, for, one, would like to send a message to the Department telling 
them we as taxpayers don't want to see them wasting money, and, 
hopefully, this will be a shot across the bow where they are more 
studious with our money and more aware of the taxpayers' concern that 
they should not invest in every kind of program.
  In fact, the administration just again loaned more money to solar 
panels, which, again, is going to go bankrupt. In fact, almost all the 
solar panels which they have loaned money to have all gone bankrupt, 
and that ends up coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our 
distinguished colleague from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the full committee 
for yielding and rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I find it extremely shortsighted because in this particular program 
we have so many successes. We have built 15 advanced vehicle 
manufacturing facilities, one of the largest wind farms in the world; 
constructed the first nuclear power plant in the country in more than 3 
decades, the largest photovoltaic generation facility of its kind, the 
largest concentrated solar power plant in the world.
  I can tell you this isn't just--this is new technology. This is like 
NASA at the beginning, where we have got private sector money involved 
but also public sector money.
  There will be some errors made, that is true. And let me tell you, 
the Chinese undercut the market. I have seen it happen. I am from the 
solar valley of Ohio, and I saw what the Chinese did.
  We still have First Solar, the best company in the country in terms 
of volume and so forth, and that was largely privately funded; but at 
the beginning it had some photovoltaic research dollars that came from 
the Department.
  So we are talking about inventing the future. This isn't quite the 
same as going out for a car loan, because when you have predators like 
China come and literally buy your technology from under you in your 
startup company, it is a very slippery playing field.
  I would say they have done a commendable job in embracing the future. 
I think the gentleman's amendment really is not constructive.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I oppose the 
amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stockman).

[[Page 11696]]

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Stockman

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:

     SEC.___. OFFSHORE DRILLING PERMITS.

       No funds made available by this Act may be used by the 
     Department of Energy to block approval of offshore drilling 
     permits.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from Texas 
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chair, there is oversight. I would argue that 
there is oversight on the permits such as off the coast of Texas in 
which we have been developing it, and there has been, I feel, unfair 
interference. I think to send a signal to the Department that we are 
serious about allowing us to become number one in the world of energy, 
my district alone employs thousands and thousands of people in the 
energy industry, and having these kind of restrictions laid upon the 
industry is not longsighted but, rather, shortsighted.
  So I would ask that the amendment be accepted as proposed. I think 
that, overall, it will be a benefit to the United States if we develop.
  Off the coast of California, they have as much as $1 trillion in 
reserves, and much of it is actually seeping up naturally onto the 
shores of California. Actually, by allowing industry to develop those 
fields, you would actually have less seepage of oil up on the coast of 
California.
  I, for one, want us to continue to create jobs, and the number one 
job creator in the United States now and today is energy. I think that 
if we look at the future, the future of the United States is going to 
be in the energy industry as we surpass Saudi Arabia.
  Madam Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Number one, it is nongermane to our bill. In fact, the amendment is 
actually unnecessary because there are no funds related to this purpose 
in our bill at all. Perhaps the gentleman could present the amendment 
to another bill, but literally, it is extraneous. It has no 
relationship to the bill before us here in the House, and I would ask 
my colleagues to oppose it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. My colleague from Ohio, whom I have for many years 
admired, if that is accurate, then it shouldn't be a problem supporting 
it if it doesn't have any impact on the bill. I believe it does. From 
what I understand, it would be germane, but that is a difference of 
opinion.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stockman).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 508.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce any rule that 
     would increase electricity prices or reduce electricity 
     reliability.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  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. YOHO. Madam Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating my 
colleagues, Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur, for crafting a 
strong bipartisan bill that enhances our Nation's energy 
infrastructure, strengthens our nuclear weapon security programs, and 
ensures investments are made to grow jobs here in America.
  Furthermore, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member 
and the hardworking committee staff for accepting language into the 
base bill regarding navigable waters. This past April, 28 of my 
colleagues joined me in a letter to the Appropriations Committee 
suggesting language be included. I am pleased that it ended up in the 
final product, and I thank you, Chairman Simpson, as do our Nation's 
farmers and ranchers.
  The amendment I bring to the floor today would limit the 
administration's ability to create and enforce rules through the 
Department of Energy, rules that would increase our cost of electricity 
and decrease the reliability of our electric grid.
  This administration has made unprecedented rules and regulations when 
it comes to the sources of our electric generation. This President's 
ideological stance against fossil fuels, which supplies 80 percent of 
our domestic electricity, is crippling industry and increasing costs 
for all Americans.
  These policies injure low-income Americans the most. Those with the 
least amount of disposable income in my north central Florida region 
and district will have to choose between feeding their families or 
possibly turning on their air conditioner.
  This is America, and we have the means to produce inexpensive, 
reliable energy sources, and we need to do just that. We do it 
responsibly, and we have become great stewards of the environment.

                              {time}  1800

  We, as the people of government, in government, should do what is 
best for the American people, for the American economy, increasing our 
security, energy security, and our competitiveness.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson) for any remarks that he may have.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I want to say, even though I am going to 
raise a point of order against this amendment, I support the idea of 
what he is trying to do.
  I am concerned about some of the unintended consequences this 
amendment might have. But I agree with its intent, to prevent 
administration rules that increase electricity prices or reduce 
electricity reliability.
  I look forward to working with my colleague to identify and mitigate, 
if necessary, its unintended consequences and the ways that we might be 
able to do this that don't subject themselves to a point of order.
  Mr. YOHO. Madam Chair, I understand that, and I appreciate that the 
chairman's concern is the broad nature of the amendment.
  Still, my hope is to work with Chairman Simpson and Chairman Upton to 
find a solution to this problem. I cannot and shall not sit idly while 
this administration singlehandedly destroys the most reliable and 
affordable energy source in the world.
  And with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.

[[Page 11697]]

  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination as to the effect of a rule on electricity prices or 
reliability.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


       Amendment Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York

  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Madam Chair, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the order 
     entitled ``Order Accepting Proposed Tariff Revisions and 
     Establishing a Technical Conference'' issued by the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission on August 13, 2013 (Docket No. 
     ER13-1380-000).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from New 
York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Madam Chair, many of my 
colleagues may be familiar with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, also known as FERC. But I imagine few of my colleagues have 
experienced an agency with the accountability that we have experienced 
in the Hudson Valley recently, or have seen how a few unelected 
bureaucrats can wreak havoc, literally, on our utility bills and those 
of our struggling neighbors without regard for basic facts, like how 
those people use energy or how those bills will be paid or whether 
people can even afford to pay these bills after the worst winter and 
the highest energy costs we have seen in a generation. This egregious 
bureaucratic overreach has to stop.
  In January, FERC approved a plan to create what is called a new 
capacity zone in the Hudson Valley. Now, this new zone would 
arbitrarily impose an unprecedented $230 million increase in energy 
costs in my region for just the first year alone, and nearly $500 
million in increased costs over the first 3 years. This is absolutely 
outrageous and unnecessary.
  No one elected anyone in the FERC, and they are accountable to no 
one. But their decisions affect all of us and, in this case, affect the 
struggling ratepayers of the Hudson Valley.
  Initial estimates suggest that customers throughout the Hudson Valley 
could see their utility bills go up by as much as 10 percent. This, 
again, after the worst winter and highest energy costs in a generation.
  Every single day, I am hearing from my neighbors about how awful this 
decision is and their fears of how they will pay for their energy. I 
heard from Russ in Putnam Valley, who told me that, as a senior on a 
fixed income, this is an increase that he simply can't afford. He is 
expected to pay $120 more over the next year, and he doesn't have it.
  And it is not just families that will be hit. Schools, like those in 
Carmel, are scrambling to find ways to cut budgets that are already 
stretched thin. And our large employers, like IBM, estimate that this 
FERC decision could cost just IBM up to $10 million over the next year.
  Now, you might think that any agency with that kind of destructive 
power might be accountable to someone, but apparently you would be 
wrong.
  Last week, I received a letter from Dutchess County Executive Marcus 
Molinaro stating that, in the 20 years that he has been in elected 
office, ``I have never interacted with a less accessible, less 
accountable government entity, seemingly impervious to legislative and 
public scrutiny.'' I couldn't agree more, and we have that agreement 
across party lines and across levels of government.
  The new capacity zone is an unnecessary and destructive step designed 
to fix a problem that we can fix in so many other ways, and we have to 
rein in these unaccountable Washington bureaucrats.
  So my amendment is simple. It would specifically prohibit funds from 
going towards allowing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
enforce the decision that created the new capacity zone. Because a 
runaway agency like this needs a serious wake-up call, and this 
amendment will let FERC know that they are accountable to folks like 
Russ and the people in Carmel and the seniors in my district and to 
this Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. And 
I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns.
  We engaged in a colloquy an hour or so ago. And I supported the 
Member's concerns, and I still do. However, this amendment goes beyond 
what I can support.
  I am concerned that such a blunt action, as this amendment, may have 
unintended consequences. We simply have not had time to understand all 
of the implications to electricity prices and electricity reliability 
or other interactions with the FERC order referenced in the amendment. 
Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman 
for his assistance with the colloquy earlier. I respect his remarks.
  Let me just point out that this amendment relates to a specific FERC 
docket. So by definition, it can affect nothing other than this 
specific decision that I have referred to.
  I yield for such time as he may wish to consume to the gentleman from 
New York, Chris Gibson, my colleague from across the aisle who also 
represents the Hudson Valley.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my friend Sean Patrick 
Maloney. We are working together on this amendment, and we are fighting 
for our constituents.
  We just came through last winter, one of the harshest winters for 
those in upstate New York, where we saw our gas and home heating prices 
rise. We saw our electricity prices double. And yet as my friend Mr. 
Maloney just pointed out, we see that FERC wants to continue on and has 
moved forward with this new capacity zone, which they claim is going to 
lead to more generation.
  But, look, these rising rates, they are not necessary. We already 
have interest in our region for more generation, and this is just more 
burden on our constituents.
  And if you take a look at how this is impacting across the area, this 
is hurting hardworking families. It is impacting small businesses. So 
we are talking about a loss of jobs, we are talking about heartache on 
families, all for something that is unnecessary. And, as Mr. Maloney 
pointed out, this is coming from FERC, which has really been 
unaccountable when it comes to our concerns.
  Mr. Maloney and I, our Governor, one of our Senators--we have had 
leaders at every echelon reach out to FERC and explain to them, 
especially given the harsh winter that we went through and the fact 
that it is unnecessary. This is tone-deaf and outrageous that they are 
going forward. We want to fight this.
  We thank the chairman and ranking member for their acknowledgement in 
the report language. Going forward, we think that will be helpful. But 
we need relief right now.
  We are asking for support for this amendment. We think this is the 
right thing to do. And I would ask all my colleagues to stand up. Let's 
fight for families. Let's fight for small business.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. I yield back the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 11698]]

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick 
Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used within the borders of the State of Louisiana by the 
     Mississippi Valley Division or the Southwestern Division of 
     the Army Corps of Engineers or any district of the Corps 
     within such divisions to implement or enforce the mitigation 
     methodology, referred to as the ``Modified Charleston 
     Method''.

  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. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to present an amendment that is a 
bipartisan amendment that has passed for the last 2 years that this 
bill has come before the House.
  What this deals with is a change in process for mitigation methods 
that the Corps of Engineers implemented back in 2011 called the 
Modified Charleston Method. And when they implemented this new method 
of mitigation, it basically started making a lot of projects--surely in 
southeast Louisiana--unworkable, including, Mr. Chairman, flood 
protection projects.
  One of the things we have seen is that it actually has increased the 
cost of flood protection projects along the coast by over 300 percent, 
which in many cases has made those flood protection projects 
unaffordable for local governments to be able to afford for themselves, 
where they are putting up their own money. It is not even Federal 
money.
  And here comes the Federal Government, putting in an unworkable plan 
that makes it cost-prohibitive to actually implement flood protection. 
And, of course, we have seen at the Federal level what happens if you 
don't have that kind of protection. We sure don't want to be in a 
position where we are stopping local communities from being able to 
protect themselves against flood with their own money.
  What is even more ironic about this, Mr. Chairman, is that the Corps 
of Engineers, while they have imposed this on local governments and 
private business, they have exempted themselves from it. The Corps of 
Engineers doesn't even use this method that they have imposed on 
everybody else--I am sure because they recognize it would be unworkable 
for them. But they impose it on everybody else. That is not the way we 
should do business, Mr. Chairman.
  What this amendment says is that no funds can be expended to 
implement that unworkable method. Let's get back to the normal way of 
doing mitigation, which was practical, which was the way most other 
places in the country do it.
  I would like to submit for the Record a letter from my colleague from 
Louisiana, Cedric Richmond, who is also in strong support and is the 
lead cosponsor of this amendment.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 10, 2014.
     Hon. Mike Simpson, Chairman,
     Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related 
         Agencies House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Simpson: I would like to express my support 
     for this amendment being offered by my colleague from 
     Louisiana, Mr. Scalise to H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water 
     Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This 
     amendment deals with the use of the Modified Charleston 
     Method by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans 
     district. This method is different from the method used for 
     other areas across the country and has caused unique and 
     significant problems for our area.
       By increasing the cost of mitigation for a wide variety of 
     important projects, the MCM has made some projects in our 
     region dramatically, and in some cases even prohibitively, 
     more expensive. These increasing costs for critical 
     infrastructure and flood protection projects are deeply 
     concerning, especially given the important flood protection 
     projects currently being planned for in my district. Projects 
     like the levee project for the West Shore of Lake 
     Pontchartrain which would protect the homes of thousands of 
     residents as well as businesses and energy infrastructure 
     that is critical to the entire nation. We must ensure that 
     the people of the River Parishes get the protection they need 
     as quickly as possible. The escalating costs brought about by 
     the MCM are concerning because of the effect it could have on 
     projects like this.
       This amendment says that we need to move forward with a 
     better way to handle mitigation. We understand the need and 
     the importance of proper mitigation for all projects. We just 
     need to make sure that the method we use does not keep us 
     from protecting our citizens or hamper our future economic 
     development.
           Sincerely,
                                               Cedric L. Richmond.

  Mr. SCALISE. I urge adoption, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho

  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Weber of Texas). The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for ``DE--FOA0000697: Sustainable Cities: Urban 
     Energy Planning for Smart Growth in China and India''.

  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. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, at a time of deep deficits and a mounting 
national debt, we cannot allow our taxpayers' dollars to be squandered 
away in order to upgrade cities in China and India.
  In 2012, a program was issued by the Department of Energy with the 
purpose of ``conducting international collaborative efforts that 
accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy 
technologies'' at the expense of the American taxpayer.
  While this appropriation bill does not explicitly include funding for 
these projects, I believe this amendment is essential to ensure the 
administration cannot misuse hard-earned taxpayer money.
  All in this Chamber have seen what the President is capable of, given 
the opportunity to invoke his ideological agenda. It is not America's 
job to help foreign nations upgrade their cities. Countries like China 
and India have their own taxpayers and are among the largest economic 
engines in the world.
  Our country was founded on the principle of self-determination. 
Enticing economic change in foreign countries with money borrowed from 
future generations is a gross departure of that principle, especially 
in these hard economic times.
  And with that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
the State of Georgia (Mr. Collins), my colleague and good friend.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Florida yielding.
  And really, I think this just goes back to a simple reflection of 
priorities. We are here tonight, and both sides are coming to the 
floor. They are offering amendments. They are talking about energy and 
water. And Chairman Simpson has done a fine job of bringing this to the 
floor, and I think we have some good stuff going here.
  But this is about priorities. Why should we be looking at funding 
priorities for other countries who have their own sufficient taxpayer 
money, their own sufficient growth?

                              {time}  1815

  They may have trouble in growth, but why are we looking at it from a 
perspective that we should possibly say we are going to use our funds 
to do this on? This is not something we need to be a part of. It is not 
saying: just let China and India take care of themselves, we don't have 
a part.
  We have plenty of private industry that will go in at a fee and also 
do this.

[[Page 11699]]

Why would we be putting government funds possibly towards this.
  I think this is another area where we deal with sustainable cities. 
This is a concern of many of my constituents. Some have actually called 
this looking at how we go across the world an agenda 21 wannabe. This 
is just simply something we shouldn't be doing.
  This is just something that we want to limit and simply say: we are 
going to be a leader, let's let the rest of the world lead, but let's 
let them pay with their own dollars.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Florida bringing this.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. Chairman, we, again, as people in government that represent our 
constituents, we should do everything in our power to make America 
stronger, more economically sound, and more competitive across the 
world, not less.
  Again, this amendment will prevent future actions from the 
administration causing hardworking American taxpayers' money to be 
spent to subsidize clean energy in countries like China and India.
  Mr. Chairman, 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, this amendment would prohibit 
funding for what is called the sustainable cities program, which is 
aimed at deploying U.S. technical expertise to urban energy planning 
for cities in places like India and China. So the gentleman and I look 
at this in a little bit of a different way.
  Mr. Chairman, this effort is aimed at developing markets for U.S. 
products in places that are growing, and I think census figures show 
that India and China are absolutely growing, and their economies are 
growing.
  In fact, in places like China, it is growing so fast that they are 
actually often stealing our technology and buying our companies out 
from underneath us, and we lose market edge.
  Mr. Chairman, this particular program encompasses a variety of 
technical assistance activities to actually prime those markets for our 
clean technologies in places where there is population increase and a 
need for product and would help potentially to support the export of 
American clean energy technologies. That means jobs here at home; it 
means exports out of the United States, rather than imports in here in 
two major economies.
  Working closely with U.S. companies, the Department of Commerce and 
other governments will focus on product testing and developing minimum 
standards, certifying that we can actually achieve the installation of 
these clean energy products. Here at home, obviously, we help our clean 
energy sector to develop.
  Specific examples already underway include facilitating a memorandum 
of understanding that could lead to the first commercial-scale 
deployment of concentrated solar power deployment in China--a deal that 
could be valued at $350 million--with manufacturing of the key 
intellectual property here in the United States.
  Another involves gaining access to the wind energy market in China--
which is a growing market--coordination and exchanges between our 
department and private sector, our U.S. and Chinese cities, has led to 
increasing sales of U.S. clean energy goods in China already.
  It is no secret that China has some challenges--and India has 
challenges--dealing with the enormity of their populations and the 
stress on their energy infrastructure.
  We need to boost innovation here at home. This is one very modest 
program, but one, I think, that deserves attention. The last time I 
looked, we, as a country, had a gigantic trade deficit with China. That 
means more goods coming in here than our goods going out.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one small step forward to try to penetrate 
those markets using some of the higher tech technologies that we have 
in the energy field, so I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think he 
might look at the program in a different way than I do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, as well, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Fleming

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 113-486.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee to carry 
     out section 301 of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (42 
     U.S.C. 16421a; added by section 402 of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to, again, offer an amendment 
that would stop a loan program created by the 2009 stimulus bill.
  Last year's amendment passed the House by a significant margin, and 
the administration appeared to get the message, not authorizing any new 
projects during the fiscal year.
  However, in their most recent budget request, they plan to receive 
and review 100 project proposals, review six business plan proposals, 
provide technical assistance for the development of four projects, and 
assist with two projects in the financing phase.
  One of the future projects is estimated to cost $1.5 billion for the 
Federal share alone, which is almost half of the Western Area Power 
Administration's borrowing authority.
  How bad is this program? It is not merely a loan guarantee program, 
like the one that backed Solyndra. It is an actual loan from the 
Federal Government, with a built-in bailout mechanism. That's right, 
built in to the law is this actual bailout.
  I am going to quote from what the law says:

       If, at the end of the useful life of a project, there is a 
     remaining balance owed to the Treasury under this section, 
     the balance shall be forgiven.

  That means we have got agenda-driven, uneconomical renewable energy 
projects being funded directly by the Federal Government, and if they 
fail, taxpayers are on the hook once again.
  What has been the performance of these projects so far? In November 
2011, the Department of Energy inspector general issued a lengthy 
management alert on the stimulus borrowing authority. To quote from 
that report:

       Because of a variety of problems, the project is estimated 
     to be 2 years behind schedule and $70 million over budget; 
     essentially out of funds; and currently at a standstill, with 
     no progress being made. Western had not completed a formal 
     root-cause analysis and corrective action plan designed to 
     ensure more effective program safeguards are in place going 
     forward. Because Western has committed $25 million in 
     developmental funding to a potential $3 billion project that 
     could ultimately require an investment of $1.5 billion in 
     Recovery Act borrowing authority, we are issuing this report 
     as a management alert.

  That is why last year's Republican budget noted:

       The $3.25 billion borrowing authority in the Western Area 
     Power Administration's Transmission Infrastructure Program 
     provides loans to develop new transmission systems aimed 
     solely at integrating renewable energy. This authority was 
     inserted into the stimulus bill without the opportunity for 
     debate. Of most concern, the authority includes a bailout 
     provision that would require American taxpayers to pay 
     outstanding balances on projects that private developers 
     failed to repay.

  As I and many others have pointed out when the bill was passed, the 
stimulus--which was billed as funding shovel-ready programs--actually 
became a vehicle to bake in higher levels of

[[Page 11700]]

spending and new government programs.
  As with other government loan programs, we have all too often seen 
abuses and mismanagement, and this program is no exception.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank my colleagues, Mr. McClintock and 
Chairman Hastings, for their past work in offering and marking up a 
bill to repeal this program. I urge my colleagues, again, to support 
and pass this amendment, and I reserve 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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I think the gentleman's amendment, including some vagueness of his 
language, will likely have many unintended consequences. For example, 
one of the projects, the Enbridge corporation, which constructed the 
Montana-Alberta power line, has already repaid our government $161 
million of its borrowed authority--its loan--decades ahead of schedule, 
showing that transmission projects, when vetted properly, are sound 
investments.
  Essentially, his proposal would repeal the Western Area Power 
Administration's borrowing authority for the construction of 
transmission lines that would bring renewable energy to market.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $3.25 billion in 
borrowing authority for WAPA. This authority allowed for the 
construction of new transmission lines to deliver power from renewable 
energy sources.
  By repealing their authority, it is just another example of, 
unfortunately, the Republican Party's anti-renewable energy strategy.
  The borrowing authority has already led to the financing of two much-
needed transmission lines out West--not even in my own part of the 
country--the one that I mentioned, the Montana-Alberta transmission 
line, which brings wind power to markets in our country, and the Palo 
Verde Electrical District 5 in Arizona. The Tohono O'odham Nation is 
already looking to utilize the PV-ED5 line to bring solar power 
generated on to their reservation.
  Mr. Chairman, if adopted, the amendment would have the following 
impacts: for the Palo Verde project, which is customer driven, it is 92 
percent complete, and it could be brought to a halt.
  It supports mostly rural customers and Native American tribes and is 
a model of public-private partnership for which this program was 
created.
  It will also allow those customers--and potentially others--to add 
renewable energy to the grid, while strengthening the transmission 
system in an area which is seeking growth and actually has more demand.
  If that project is totally completed, something that is jeopardized 
by this amendment, the benefits of the project include providing 
customer access to the Palo Verde trading hub and also providing 300 
megawatts of unconstrained transfer capability from ED5 to Palo Verde, 
to support and enhance the viability of renewable resources in 
development in southern Arizona.
  Jobs and transmission investment capability would be negatively 
impacted, and it could impact how--on behalf of the ED5 project--how it 
reimburses staff for work in support of the project.
  Now, I mentioned that there are projects already underway that this 
amendment would bring to a halt. What sense does that make? I mean, we 
have already got issues in our country.
  We need jobs in this country. We need affordable energy in this 
country. We need diversified energy in this country. I really don't 
understand why the gentleman is offering this amendment, but I can tell 
you the attorneys who looked at this language continue to find there 
will be additional impacts due to the vagueness of the language you 
have proposed.
  I would guess your amendment will likely have many other unintended 
consequences, such as impacts on the preference power customers.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLEMING. Well, my response, Mr. Chairman, is, first of all, there 
is nothing vague about the billions and billions of dollars that have 
already been wasted through corporate welfare, giving loans that are 
guaranteed by the Federal Government, loans to companies such as 
Solyndra and a whole list of others that now have failed and taken the 
taxpayer money with them.
  Now, with regard to the gentlewoman's claim that programs and 
projects already in progress would be stopped, well, that is absolute 
nonsense because those deals have been signed. That money has already 
been committed.
  What we are talking about is stopping any new projects. Again, I 
would emphasize here that, if these projects made sense--whether it is 
renewable or nonrenewable, whether it is carbon-based or noncarbon-
based, there is plenty of capital out there to lend. There are a lot of 
people who want to make money on energy. There are a lot of people who 
have made money on energy.
  The reason why there isn't a private market out there primarily is 
because the government has displaced that private market; and number 
two, in many cases, when the question is asked--in fact, the President 
of the United States--why is the government lending this money?
  His answer was: well, because you can't get it from the private 
market and private investors. Why? Because it is a dumb idea. They will 
never get their money back.
  So why in the world do we want to let the taxpayer money go down the 
tubes when other people, who are a heck of a lot smarter than we are, 
see that it is unfit for lending and for capital production?
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Walberg

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out section 801 of the Energy Independence 
     and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17281).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair for the good work done 
on this piece of legislation, but I offer an amendment that would 
prohibit the use of funds to carry out a national media campaign to 
promote alternative green technologies.
  In 2007, Congress authorized the Department of Energy to create a 
national media campaign to convince Americans to buy green technologies 
at the tune of $5 million a year. Now, my amendment would simply 
prohibit funds from going to this misguided, unnecessary, government-
run campaign.
  As constituents in my Michigan district are struggling to deal with 
$4 a gallon gas prices and energy costs brought about by this 
administration's harmful energy limitation policies, the last thing we 
need, Mr. Chairman, is Washington bureaucrats telling them how to live 
their lives.
  They are smart enough to know, as are the overwhelming majority of 
American citizens in all of our districts, Mr. Chairman, to know what 
energy sources work for them, work best for their families, for their 
businesses, and especially when our country has emerged and is emerging 
still further--if we would allow it and encourage it as

[[Page 11701]]

an energy superpower--and now leads the world in natural gas and oil 
production.
  Instead of funding unnecessary ad campaigns, let's get to work on 
energy policy which takes advantage of our energy abundance and leads 
to lower prices, more jobs and greater global security.
  Green technologies should be a part of a real all-of-the-above energy 
policy, but picking winners and losers is not the role of the Federal 
Government, nor is it in the core mission of the Department of Energy.
  I was pleased that this amendment was adopted when I offered it last 
year, and I encourage my colleagues to once again support it.
  Mr. Chairman, having said what I think is necessary, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McKinley

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. 508.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to design, implement, administer, or carry out the 
     United States Global Climate Research Program National 
     Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
     Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's Agenda 
     21 sustainable development plan, the May 2013 Technical 
     Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
     Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, or the July 2014 
     Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Institute for 
     Sustainable Development and International Relations' pathways 
     to deep decarbonization report .

  Mr. McKINLEY (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from West Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to ones that 
have been offered in previous appropriations bills, and all have passed 
with strong bipartisan support.
  This amendment would prohibit agencies like the Department of Energy 
and the Corps of Engineers from being required to spend money on 
climate change policies forced upon them by the Obama administration 
and which have been based on biased studies.
  In a time of fiscal austerity and prioritization of spending, how can 
we justify taking money away from our country's leading scientists, 
physicists, and engineers at the National Energy Technology Lab, but at 
the same time ask them to research and develop clean coal technologies, 
carbon capture and sequestration, increased efficiencies for our 
turbines and power plants, and improving our natural gas extraction 
techniques from shale?
  We should not be reducing funds for rejuvenating our locks and dams 
along America's rivers, especially when the American Society for Civil 
Engineers have rated our Nation's waterway infrastructure and land 
infrastructure a D-plus. Mr. Chairman, a D may be a passing grade for 
our President, but it is a failing mark in my book.
  Spending precious resources to pursue a dubious climate change agenda 
compromises our clean energy research and America's infrastructure. 
When similar amendments were adopted previously, some claimed we were 
denying agencies the use of science.
  That is simply not true, Mr. Chairman. We want them to use science, 
but, Mr. Chairman, I want them to use science that doesn't come with a 
biased agenda.
  For example, the United Nations report says that the Antarctic ice is 
shrinking; however, NSA's satellites have confirmed that Antarctic ice 
levels have increased--increased by the size of Greenland, an alltime 
record.
  Congress should not be spending money pursuing ideologically-driven 
experiments when we face real, serious challenges to our country's 
infrastructure and its pursuit for energy efficiency. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  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 in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. It flies in the face of 97 percent of the world's scientists 
who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very 
likely due to human activities and could impose significant human and 
economic costs on societies, including ours.
  This amendment requires the Department of Energy to assume that 
carbon pollution isn't harmful and that climate change won't cost a 
thing. That is nothing but fantasy.
  The Republicans, in general, don't seem to trust the scientists, and 
I would hope that they would listen to the economists and business 
leaders ringing alarm bells about the potential costs of unmitigated 
climate change.
  Standard & Poor's rating services recently released a report warning 
that climate change will put downward pressure on the sovereign credit 
ratings of countries around the world. They wrote:

       Climate change is likely to be one of the global megatrends 
     impacting sovereign creditworthiness, in most cases, 
     negatively.

  For example, Standard & Poor's concludes that:

       Extreme weather events, especially floods, can be expected 
     to increasingly take a toll on a country's infrastructure 
     and, thus, productivity.

  Standard & Poor's also warned that fiscal performance will decline as 
government budgets come under increased stress from climate-induced 
emergency support and infrastructure reconstruction costs. We have had 
a little bit of that in our country already.
  Last month, three former Secretaries of Treasury released a report on 
the economic costs of inaction on climate change. Henry M. Paulson, 
Treasury Secretary under President George Bush said:

       Our economy is vulnerable to an overwhelming number of 
     risks from climate change.

  The report identifies numerous economic risks, including large-scale 
losses of coastal property and infrastructure, extreme heat across the 
Nation that threatens labor productivity, human health and energy 
systems, and shifting agricultural patterns and crop yields.
  Secretary Paulson wrote that:

       These risks include the potential for significant Federal 
     budget liabilities, since many businesses and property owners 
     turn to the Federal Government as the insurer of last resort.

  The economic impacts of climate change will be felt globally, 
particularly by the poorest countries. Last year, the World Economic 
Forum released its annual global risks report, which was based on a 
survey of 1,000 experts from industry, government, academia, and 
nonprofits around the world on the global risks most likely to manifest 
over the next 10 years and those that could have the greatest impacts.
  The report found that rising greenhouse gas emissions posed one of 
the biggest global risks in the coming decade and that failure to adapt 
to climate change could have a tremendous socioeconomic impact across 
the globe.
  This is not just a looming threat. We are suffering, in our country, 
the cost of climate change today--the skyrocketing costs of fighting 
wildfires, for example; the mounting costs to farmers of losing their 
crops and their livestock to more frequent and severe droughts; the 
enormous costs of rebuilding infrastructure swept away by more intense 
storms or threatened by steadily rising seas. Ask the people in 
Louisiana or New Jersey or New York.
  This amendment ignores everything that is already happening and all 
of the warnings that it is going to get a lot worse. This amendment 
denies economic reality and decrees that climate

[[Page 11702]]

change imposes no costs at all. Of course, ignoring the costs won't 
make them go away.
  In fact, all evidence shows that the longer we wait, the more we will 
allow the risks to compound and accumulate, the more costly it will be 
to solve the problem in the end. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McKinley

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 508.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to transform the National Energy Technology 
     Laboratory into a government-owned, contractor-operated 
     laboratory, or to consolidate or close the National Energy 
     Technology Laboratory.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from West Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, because there has been efforts, I 
suppose, to privatize and consolidate the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory, also known as NETL, this amendment is offered to eliminate 
that uncertainty and to continue the present public-private 
partnership.
  NETL is our Nation's premier energy laboratory for fossil energy, 
using 600 government scientists, technicians, and employees, but they 
couple that with nearly 1,200 private sector contractors.
  Through this partnership, NETL has developed breakthrough research, 
carbon capture, enhanced natural gas exploration and production, 
emission control for our power plants, and steam and gas turbine 
efficiency.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that no other national laboratory 
has the expertise and the capabilities in fossil fuel energy to develop 
what NETL already has.
  This public-private model has also been used by the National 
Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control.
  Mr. Chairman, if our government research laboratories were 
privatized, what assurance would Members of Congress have that that 
research would be done in America?
  Just pick up a newspaper on any day and you will read about another 
corporation moving its research and development work offshore. People 
looking to privatize and consolidate these laboratories seem to be 
searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I urge all my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 508.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Cape Wind Energy Project on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf off Massachusetts, Nantucket Sound.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a very simple and 
fiscally responsible amendment that should be supported by all Members 
of this body to prevent the DOE from moving forward on a loan guarantee 
to an offshore wind project. Let me hasten to add that Texas is the 
leading State for producing wind energy in this great country.
  You know, Mr. Chairman, earlier this month, the Department of Energy 
approved a $150 million conditional loan guarantee for the Cape Wind 
offshore wind energy project.
  This project consists of 130 wind turbines, each 440 feet in height, 
spanning an area the size of Manhattan, and it is located in the 
Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts.

                              {time}  1845

  This project would be funded and built primarily by foreign 
businesses and would fail to create significant local employment 
opportunities. Rather than using local businesses in the State of 
Massachusetts, or even in the United States, Cape Wind has outsourced 
the building of turbines to Denmark and the production of turbine 
foundations to Germany.
  It doesn't take more than a simple Google search, Mr. Chairman, to 
find out that this offshore wind project has been mired in controversy 
and litigation for the past 13 years.
  Federal agencies were recently required by the courts to conduct more 
scientific reviews to better assess Cape Wind's impacts to the 
environment. Cape Wind's litigation troubles are far from over as 
project opponents--which include the Alliance to Protect Nantucket 
Sound, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Town of 
Barnstable, and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head--can appeal the project 
after the court rules on the agencies' response.
  In addition, there remains an outstanding appeal of the Cape Wind 
project brought by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and the Town 
of Barnstable against Massachusetts' regulators, the utility NSTAR, and 
Cape Wind. According to the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound's 
president and CEO:

       Our case that alleges NSTAR was coerced into signing a no-
     bid contract that violates Federal law, discriminates against 
     affordable green power producers from out of State, and 
     burdens small businesses and municipalities with 
     unnecessarily high electricity costs.

  Mr. Chairman, this loan guarantee is a wasteful gesture by DOE to 
support a project that falls into the same category as Solyndra, the 
``solar energy giant'' that received over $500 million in taxpayer 
money before its spectacular crash and burn 3 years ago. We cannot 
afford to have another failure like this occur paid for by our 
constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, by supporting this amendment, the House can send an 
important message to this administration that every penny of taxpayer 
money is precious. If Cape Wind has merit, then it should be built on 
those merits from solely private dollars and not on the backs of 
American taxpayers.
  I urge adoption of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this Act is hereby 
     reduced by 1 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition of my 
amendment, and it is only a two-line amendment.
  Before I get into the specifics on that amendment, I do want to thank 
Mr.

[[Page 11703]]

Dent, the subcommittee chair, and Chairman Rogers for the work they did 
on another issue on this bill which deals with the Department of Energy 
rules finalizing for ``Standards for Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light 
Kits'' and prohibiting money from being used on that regulation because 
of the impact that it would have on our constituents and on the price 
of ceiling fans. I appreciate the good work that they have done on that 
issue. I also appreciate the great work that they have done on this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we have got a $34 billion bill in front of us. I so 
appreciate the work of the appropriators as they have approached this 
and the responsible manner that they have gone about in bringing this 
bill forward. It is a bill that is going to spend $50.5 million less 
than in 2014. That is a good thing. The appropriators are to be 
commented for that. In addition, it is $326.9 million less than what 
the President wanted. All of those are the facts and figures.
  Tonight, this two-line amendment that I have says this is great work, 
but we have got problems. When you look at the economic situation in 
this country, when you look at what is happening with our debt, as we 
are pushing toward that $18 trillion in debt, you have to say: How is 
it fair for us to keep borrowing money, borrowing money and spending it 
on Federal programs that are going to be left for our children and 
grandchildren to pay for? These are programs that many of them will 
never use. They are programs that will have outlived their usefulness 
by the time my two grandsons earn their first paycheck. By borrowing 
and not continuing to cut a little bit more and a little bit more, what 
we are doing is passing the bill to them. It is passing the buck onto 
future generations to pay for it.
  My amendment is another 1 percent across-the-board cut. It would be 
another $341 million in savings. What it says, very simply, to all of 
our agencies that are involved in this bill, everybody, a penny on the 
dollar; just reduce your spending by one penny on a dollar. Get in 
here, challenge yourselves, challenge your employees to save a cent, 
one penny, out of what they have been appropriated. Do it responsibly. 
And do it not only for the sovereignty of this Nation; do it for our 
children and our grandchildren. Don't burden them with debt.
  What is happening with all this Nation's debt is the ultimate cap-
and-trade. What we are doing is capping our children's future and 
trading it, trading it.
  While there has been tremendous work done and our Republican-led 
Appropriations Committee is doing work which never has been done and 
reducing this spending and pulling it back, we need to challenge these 
agencies to join us in this effort. Just as our businesses in each of 
our districts are cutting back and saving money, the Federal Government 
needs to be doing the very same thing.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect 
taxpayer dollars, this is not an approach I can support. What she 
suggests of just saving one penny from the Federal agencies is what we 
have been doing for the last 4 years on the Appropriations Committee, 
as she recognized. We have been reducing spending. In fact, we have 
reduced spending much more than 1 percent.
  This bill is fully consistent with the Ryan-Murray budget compromise, 
and it spends, as was mentioned, $50 million below last year's level. 
The Ryan-Murray budget deal was passed by this House.
  While difficult tradeoffs had to be made, this bill in its current 
form balances our needs. We prioritize funding for critical 
infrastructure and our national defense. These tradeoffs were carefully 
weighed for their respective impacts and are responsible, yet the 
gentlewoman's amendment proposes an across-the-board cut on every one 
of these programs. It makes no distinction between where we need 
spending to invest in our infrastructure, promote jobs, meet our 
national security needs, and where we need to limit spending to meet 
our deficit reduction goals.
  The basic problem I have and have always had with across-the-board 
cuts is that it doesn't recognize the programs that are priorities and 
things that we ought to be spending money on, the Federal Government 
ought to be spending money on, and those things that maybe we ought to 
cut more.
  In the Appropriations Committee, every time we do an appropriation 
bill, those are the decisions we make. We prioritize them. When the 
Democrats are in the majority, the priorities go toward their 
priorities; the spending goes toward their priorities more. When we are 
in the majority, the spending goes more toward our priorities.
  If you look at our bill, there are areas in there that, if I were 
king for a day and could write any bill I wanted, there are areas I 
would probably cut more; there are areas that I would probably spend 
more. But this is a bill that is a compromise, hopefully a compromise 
for 435 Members of Congress that have different priorities and 
different needs. It does meet the budget goals that we have established 
in the Republican budget that was passed this year.
  With that, I oppose this amendment, and I yield to my good friend 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and would 
merely echo his comments and say that Mrs. Blackburn's amendment is 
well-intentioned.
  I think we have already met the goal in our subcommittee. We are $50 
million--million--below last year. It is important to keep your eye on 
the context. The context is, in the last 10 years--well, a little more 
than that. Since 2003, our country has spent $2.3 trillion on paying 
for imported petroleum--$2.3 trillion.
  When you look at the budget deficit, ask yourself why this country 
has lost economic muscle inside our borders. Our meager $34 billion 
tries to compensate for that $2.3 trillion of loss. With oil at $100 a 
barrel now, we could lose, probably in the next 20 years, close to $10 
trillion of economic activity related to the import of very expensive 
petroleum.
  So what we try to do is to fund critical projects in this bill to 
help us crawl our way back to energy independence in this country, all 
the while cutting all our accounts. I think you can't cut the future 
off. You have to recognize the context in which you are operating.
  So I think you are well-intentioned, but I think you are misfocused 
and I think you are missing the bigger--excuse the analogy--elephant in 
the room here, which is that we are losing wealth and losing strength 
economically because of these incredible imports that have just 
catapulted over the years.
  In 1998, we began importing over half of what we consumed in 
petroleum. It is simply unsustainable. We have to reinvent our way 
forward in order to grow this economy at home and create the kind of 
robust middle class jobs and middle class incomes that the American 
people are asking us for.
  I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  I oppose the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate their arguments. I am 
not going to argue with much of what they had to say. Indeed, the 
committee has met its goal. But to say this is not the context, I would 
beg to differ with the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  If we wanted to spur energy production in this country, the President 
could go out here and do a one-stop shop. He could lift the ban on 
leases. He could open up U.S. production and exploration. Yes, there is 
a way to do

[[Page 11704]]

that, and we would love to see him do that rather than restricting 
energy production.
  When it comes to across-the-board cuts, whether it is a Democratic 
Governor like in Missouri with Nixon or when you have Cuomo in New 
York, they have done across-the-board cuts. Why do they do them? 
Because it works. It spurs economic growth.
  Go back to 1964 with Johnson and the Revenue Act. Why did they lower 
unemployment and generate revenue growth? Because they cut Federal 
spending.
  There is a benefit to getting your fiscal house in order. While we 
may have set a goal and met that goal, which I applaud, I continue to 
say it is not going to be enough while we continue the deficit 
spending. It is time to get our fiscal house in order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce Executive Order 
     No. 13547 (75 Fed. Reg. 43023, relating to the stewardship of 
     oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes), including the National 
     Ocean Policy developed under such Executive Order.

  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, I am pleased to introduce this amendment on 
behalf of my distinguished colleague and fellow member of the Natural 
Resources Committee, Representative Bill Flores of Texas.
  The National Ocean Policy, created under Executive Order 13547, was 
signed by President Obama in 2010 and requires that various 
bureaucracies work together to essentially ``zone the ocean'' and the 
sources thereof, largely affecting the ways in which we utilize our 
ocean resources and impacting both our marine and inland economy.

                              {time}  1900

  You have heard of a land grab. This is an ocean grab.
  This is a simple amendment. It says that none of the funds made 
available by this act can be used to implement, administer, or enforce 
this executive order.
  This policy has large implications for our marine resources, but 
reaches much further than the ocean itself. Essentially, a drop of rain 
that falls on your land could cause the Federal Government to have 
jurisdiction over your property under the notion that this drop will 
eventually wind up in the ocean.
  That the EPA, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, recently 
released a ``Waters of the U.S.'' rule which vastly expands the 
agency's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act by redefining 
``navigable waterways'' serves as an example. I commend the committee 
for including a provision in this bill barring the implementation of 
such a rule.
  The National Ocean Policy not only restricts ocean and inland 
activities, but it deters the intended focus and finances of over 20 
Federal agencies that meet as a part of the National Ocean Policy, a 
council that has no statutory authority to exist and no congressional 
appropriation.
  Both the Natural Resources Committee and the Appropriations Committee 
have asked for detailed spending reports on this overreaching policy, 
and neither committee has yet to receive any information.
  Numerous and varied industries will suffer as a result of this well-
meaning but ill-conceived policy, including but not limited to 
agriculture, energy, fisheries, mining, and marine retail enterprises, 
to just name a few. This has the potential to be devastating for 
coastal communities such as in my district--a coastal district located 
on the Gulf of Mexico, where the previously mentioned industries play a 
critical role in our economy.
  Those who are affected most by the policy won't have a say or any 
representation in the rulemaking process because there is no current 
system of oversight in place for the regional planning agencies created 
as an arm of the National Ocean Council. Much uncertainty remains 
regarding program implementation, its impact, the limits of its 
authority, and lack of true stakeholder involvement.
  The President has indicated that he will use his pen and his phone to 
create policy against the will of Congress, and the National Ocean 
Policy is a perfect opportunity for him to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to stop excessive 
regulation and protect our ocean and affiliated inland economies, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentlewoman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment that is 
offered here today, which would block funding for the implementation of 
National Ocean Policy.
  The National Ocean Policy seeks to improve the coordinated management 
of our oceans and coasts and to address the most pressing issues facing 
our oceans, resources, and coastal communities.
  In fact, just 2 weeks ago, there were over 100 different ocean users 
meeting in Massachusetts to help develop New England's ocean plan. This 
included lobstermen from Maine, my home State; science educators from 
New Hampshire, fishermen from Massachusetts, clean energy 
representatives from Rhode Island, and recreational fishermen from 
Connecticut, all meeting with Federal and State agencies to talk about 
how to improve their options for their local businesses, build 
resiliency for coastal communities in the face of extreme weather 
events, and maintain the health of the ocean that provides us with 
goods and services we need and enjoy.
  The National Ocean Policy does not call for ``zoning'' the ocean. 
Rather, it is a strategy to increase efficiency by bringing 
stakeholders together and giving citizens and businesses a voice in the 
decisionmaking process. This policy provides a way for the Federal 
Government to hear from and to coordinate activities with States, 
communities, and business owners.
  Many State and local interests are eager to coordinate with the 
Federal Government, and this policy is already helping to make that 
happen.
  Let's be clear. The policy is really about helping agencies like NOAA 
fisheries work more closely with fishermen and the Navy to coordinate 
with port communities. Why should we consider prohibiting these 
critically important relationships between businesses, States, and 
Federal interests?
  The National Ocean Policy helps to ensure that our resources, our 
culture, our history, and the economic vitality of our communities are 
fully considered in the decisions concerning our oceans.
  I urge my colleagues to join me, and I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Byrne amendment, which 
would prohibit implementation of the National Ocean Policy, which 
permits better coordination among Federal agencies responsible for 
coastal planning.
  This amendment, by preventing agencies like the Army Corps of 
Engineers from coordinating with Federal and State partners, would 
impede States like Rhode Island, my home

[[Page 11705]]

State, from managing their own resources in the ways that best fit 
their needs and priorities, and advancing policies that protect our 
oceans in a responsible way.
  The administration has made it clear that the National Ocean Policy 
does not create new regulations, supersede current regulations, or 
modify any agency's established mission, jurisdiction, or authority. 
Rather, it helps coordinate the implementation of existing regulations 
by Federal agencies to establish a more efficient and effective 
decisionmaking process.
  In the Northeast, our Regional Ocean Council has allowed States to 
pool resources and businesses to have a voice in decisionmaking, and 
has coordinated with Federal partners to ensure all stakeholders have a 
voice in the process.
  Allowing Federal agencies to coordinate implementation of over 100 
ocean laws and giving States and local governments a voice in the ocean 
planning process is smart public policy, and I urge my colleagues to 
rejects this very misguided amendment.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island 
for his articulate thoughts and for reinforcing what those of us in 
coastal communities truly believe.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one more time that this is 
critically important policy for our country. I am fortunate to 
represent a State that has some of the highest level of shoreline of 
any State in the Nation. We have fishermen. We have economic interests 
on the shore. Everyday, I hear from my constituents who are deeply 
concerned about the changes that we are facing, whether it is the sea 
level rising, changing in the fisheries, loss of species, economic 
issues involving our coastlines, working waterfront--these are serious 
issues. This represents people's livelihoods. Coastal communities, 
businesses, our economic interests are here at stake. I can't imagine 
the idea that we would move backward in National Ocean Policy and that 
we would lose the opportunity to coordinate on these critical 
interests, that we would do anything that would endanger the economic 
development and the economic and cultural future of our communities, 
our fisheries, and so many businesses that States like mine are 
completely dependent on.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and recognize that we 
have severe issues ahead of us and we have a lot of work to do.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle to read the amendment. It doesn't stop any group of people 
in any State or any coastal area in this country from working together 
to do the things they have to do to protect their waters and to use 
their waters. In fact, it frees them up, because, under this executive 
order that in this amendment we say we are not going to use the money 
from this bill to fund, they could be restricted.
  In my coastal communities, we do meet together. The Federal 
Government is not a good partner. In fact, they have been a hindrance 
to our ability to use our waters. Because there are people in the 
Federal Government who, unfortunately, believe that the oceans belong 
to the government, not to the people.
  We need to adopt this amendment for coastal communities throughout 
the United States of America so that we can protect the people's right 
to control their own oceans and their own waters so that fishermen and 
commercial uses and recreational uses of our waters are kept and 
preserved for communities throughout the country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     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:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Department of Energy's Climate Model 
     Development and Validation program.

  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 an amendment to save 
taxpayers money, help the Department of Energy avoid duplicative 
programs, and to ensure its limited resources focus on programs 
directly related to its mission to ensure energy security for the 
United States.
  This simple amendment would prohibit the use of funds to be used 
towards the proposed Climate Model Development and Validation program 
within the Department of Energy.
  The duplicative and wasteful nature of this new program has been 
recognized by several outside spending watchdog groups. My amendment is 
supported by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the 
American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, and the Taxpayers Protection 
Alliance.
  The committee has recommended no funding for the new climate model 
development and validation activity in the report. I commend the 
committee for this recommendation and their work on this issue.
  I feel strongly that the full House of Representatives needs to 
support the committee recommendation and send a strong message to the 
Senate that we should not be wasting taxpayer resources on new programs 
that compete with the private sector and should be funded through 
private investment.
  If funded, this program would be yet another new addition to the 
ever-growing list of global warming programs that have been instituted 
and funded all over the Federal Government in recent years. The 
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates this 
administration has already squandered $77 billion from fiscal year 2008 
to 2013 studying and trying to develop global climate change 
regulations.
  Consequently, I am very concerned by ongoing efforts by this 
administration to waste even more taxpayer dollars on new programs for 
Climate Model Development and Validation.
  The President's budget request for this program states:
  New investment in Climate Model Development and Validation will 
enable restructuring the model architecture, new software engineering 
and computational upgrades, and incorporating scale-aware physics in 
all model components.
  Climate modeling and all of these things are being done by dozens of 
government, academic, business, and nonprofit organizations across the 
globe. While research and modeling of the Earth's climate and how and 
why the Earth's climate is changing can be of value, it is not central 
to the Department's mission.
  Considering the extensive work that is being done to research, model, 
and forecast climate change trends by other areas in government, in the 
private sector, and internationally, funding for this specific piece of 
President Obama's climate agenda is not only redundant, it is also 
inefficient.
  I thank the chairman and committee for their work on this bill, and 
this issue specifically. This amendment is about effective use of 
taxpayers' money, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, this amendment blocks funding for 
the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation 
program. This is climate science denial at its worst.
  The world's top scientific institutions are all telling us that we 
have a rapidly closing window to reduce our carbon pollution before the 
catastrophic impacts of climate change cannot be avoided.

[[Page 11706]]

  So far, the world has already warmed by 0.8 degrees Celsius, and we 
are already seeing the effects of climate change. Most scientists agree 
that 2 degrees Celsius is the maximum amount we can warm without really 
dangerous effects, although many scientists now believe that even 2 
degrees is far too much, given the effects we are already seeing. But 
absent dramatic action, we are on track to warm 4 to 6 degrees Celsius 
by mid-century. That is more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit.
  The International Energy Agency has concluded that if the world does 
not take action to reduce carbon pollution by 2017--just 3 years from 
now--then it will be virtually impossible to limit warming to 2 degrees 
Celsius.
  How do we know all this? There are multiple lines of evidence, 
including direct measurements. But scientists also use sophisticated 
computer models of how the atmosphere and oceans work and how they 
respond to different atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases.
  For projection of future emissions and their impacts, scientists have 
made numerous advances by collaborating across academic fields, 
including climatology, chemistry, biology, economics, energy dynamics, 
agriculture, scenario building, and risk management.

                              {time}  1915

  These projections are critical as they provide guideposts to 
understanding how quickly and how steeply the world needs to cut carbon 
pollution in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
  The goal of the DOE's climate model development and validation 
program is to further improve the reliability of climate models and 
equip policymakers and citizens with tools to predict the current and 
future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme 
weather events, and drought.
  Mr. Gosar's amendment scraps this program. It says no to enhancing 
the reliability of our climate models. It says no to improving our 
understanding of how the climate is changing. It says no to informing 
policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. I 
think that is absolutely irresponsible.
  The amazing thing is that the base bill already zeros out the funding 
for this program; but, apparently, that isn't enough to satisfy the 
Republicans' climate denial.
  So Mr. Gosar has offered this amendment to just reiterate the point 
that the House Republicans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence 
about climate change. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about making a 
statement on climate change or the validity of climate science. This is 
an amendment about fiscal responsibility and efficiency.
  More than 50 universities and academic institutions around the globe 
are engaged in climate modeling. This particular issue has been 
addressed very well by the academic and the nonprofit sectors with much 
greater efficiency and speed than any government bureaucracy can ever 
look at.
  The President has already spent $77 billion since 2008. This is on 
top of the billions of dollars being spent by institutions and 
organizations around the world. Let's start talking about that.
  The Nation is currently $17.5 trillion in debt. The Federal 
Government spends a trillion more dollars than it takes in.
  Fact: more than 50 of the world's leading scientific institutions are 
already deeply engaged in climate modeling and spending billions of 
their own dollars on this research.
  Fact: Congress must make tough choices to cut duplicative programs in 
government and get Federal spending under control.
  Let's look at these prestigious universities that obviously don't 
know what they are doing: the University of Colorado at Boulder, 
Harvard University, MIT, Princeton University, the University of 
Arizona, Arizona State University, the University of Chicago, the 
University of California at Berkeley.
  Mr. Chairman, the last I looked, these are some of the leading 
institutions in the country, and I think they know a little bit better 
than the Federal Government.
  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.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 173 at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to award grants or provide funding for high-
     efficiency toilets or indoor water-efficient toilets.

  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 an amendment to save 
taxpayer money and get the government out of the business of 
subsidizing expensive toilet exchanges and upgrades that yield highly 
questionable returns.
  This amendment has support from several spending watchdog groups, 
including the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Eagle 
Forum, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and Generation Opportunity.
  If toilet exchange programs were as efficient as the EPA and Bureau 
of Reclamation claim, then such products would save consumers so much 
money and water over time that they would sell themselves in the 
private marketplace and would not need taxpayer subsidies.
  According to the House Committee on Natural Resources, the Bureau of 
Reclamation's own data show that the agency has awarded a number of 
questionable grants on these projects since 2005, totaling almost $2 
million.
  The Federal expenditures spent on toilet exchange programs include a 
$200,000 grant to San Francisco in 2007 and a $300,000 grant to Texas 
and California during 2011.
  Further, in 2013, Reclamation awarded nearly $210,000 for high-
efficiency flush valves to be installed on urinals in one city in 
California as part of its WaterSMART program, despite the fact that the 
investment on this project is estimated to save only 123 acre-feet of 
water per year.
  For 2014, the agency wishes to grant funds toward a nearly million-
dollar project for indoor water-efficient fixtures and toilet upgrades 
in California. At the same time, Federal policies have allowed for more 
than 300 billion gallons of water to be diverted into the San Francisco 
Bay and Pacific Ocean to protect a 3-inch fish, known as the Delta 
smelt.
  If we are truly concerned about saving water, then we should, 
instead, invest in new infrastructure and water storage projects, 
including reservoirs, which would yield significantly higher returns on 
our investment.
  Our country's Federal multipurpose dams and reservoirs provide 
abundant amounts of water and allow for clean hydropower generation. 
This infrastructure investment helps provide the foundation for 
economic growth and long-term job security.
  Unfortunately, the Obama administration continues to focus solely on 
conservation and has actually taken action to reduce water storage 
capacity--actions which include calling for the removal of four 
privately held dams.
  This defies common sense. We should, instead, have a balanced 
approach that includes both conservation and storage. Expensive toilet 
exchange programs are not the answer, and here are

[[Page 11707]]

the facts and figures about those programs.
  Customers are eligible for a $100 rebate for installing 1.28-gallon 
toilets in exchange for their 1.6-gallon toilets. These new toilets 
cost between $200 and $500 each.
  An average toilet is flushed six times per day, while each federally-
subsidized upgrade yields about $7 per year in water and utility 
savings. Thirty-year mortgages provide quicker returns on investments.
  The kicker is these taxpayer-funded toilets are significantly smaller 
and, in many cases, have to be flushed twice. Furthermore, these 
government-subsidized toilets are a bad investment, as they eventually 
leak.
  If people are going to spend $200 to $500 on new high-efficiency 
toilets, a $100 rebate from the Federal Government is not what makes 
their decisions to purchase the toilets in the first place. At the rate 
we are subsidizing this program, we may as well be flushing taxpayer 
dollars down these upgraded toilets.
  With this ludicrous return on investment, it should go without saying 
that these projects are a waste of hard-earned taxpayer money.
  I ask you to ponder on the countless ways this money could be spent 
more wisely, including on investments to increase water storage 
capacity. This amendment is about the effective use of taxpayer money, 
and I ask my colleagues to support it.
  With that, 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 amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 210(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2238(d)(1)(B)(ii)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply 
requires that the harbor maintenance funding provided in this 
Appropriations bill comply with the recently enacted WRRDA law and that 
the 10 percent funding requirement for the Great Lakes to be met.
  The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, which this 
body passed by a 412-4 vote, includes an allocation for the Great Lakes 
navigation system of 10 percent of harbor maintenance funding provided 
above the fiscal 2012 baseline, but this amendment is more than about 
that. This is a bill that really dwells on the Great Lakes.
  What a great gift from God this Nation was given with the Great 
Lakes. One-fifth of the world's freshwater--not one-fifth of 
Pennsylvania's freshwater and certainly not one-fifth of America's 
freshwater--but one-fifth of the world's freshwater is in our Great 
Lakes. There is also a commerce element there.
  Now, where does that fit in, and why do we talk about that? Here is 
why: we are talking about jobs. We are talking about jobs at our Great 
Lakes. We are talking about 128,000 American jobs, over $33.6 billion 
in annual revenue, and it is 3 percent of our Nation's gross domestic 
product.
  This commonsense amendment just directs the Army Corps of Engineers 
to use the allocated funds as directed.
  We talk about the Great Lakes, and we talk about it an awful lot. I 
think that, sometimes, we forget how great this gift is and what our 
responsibility is.
  Sure, it is a gift from God, but it is up to men to maintain it. This 
great body is looking at this opportunity that we have right now to 
actually direct the funding that makes sure that we can still navigate 
through our Great Lakes--that we can dredge our harbors, that we can do 
breakwater maintenance, and that we can do jetties, which are all of 
those things that are necessary to keep that line open.
  The Great Lakes are truly our door to the world. It is our 
responsibility, and it falls on our shoulders right now to support 
that.
  I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member's willingness to 
consider this amendment, and I appreciate their support for our Great 
Lakes. I would also like to thank Representative Candice Miller for her 
great work on the WRRDA bill on behalf of our Great Lakes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and keep open our 
Great Lakes to the world.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  On this particular issue, applying the referenced WRRDA provision to 
this fiscal year 2015 bill means that, roughly, $30 million must be 
provided for the harbor maintenance of the Great Lakes navigation 
system.
  The underlying bill funds the budget request, which includes 
approximately $100 million for the Great Lakes. Therefore, while I 
believe it is unnecessary, I do not object to this amendment and will 
support it.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my good friend.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I commend 
Representative Kelly for offering this important effort in highlighting 
the importance of the Great Lakes.
  I feel that you may be the last speaker this evening--I don't know--
but we would say ``last, but not least,'' especially for those of us 
from the Great Lakes, and we love the attention because we most often 
don't get it.
  We had conversations today about oceans and about other parts of the 
country, and it is just so great to have someone with your commitment 
to the Great Lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, we know it is the largest body of freshwater on the 
face of the Earth and that commerce moving through the seaways is the 
shortest distance between the United States, Europe, and ports even on 
the western side of Africa, if you look at the way the globe actually 
works.
  So to have this kind of work by yourself, by the chairman of our 
subcommittee--Mr. Simpson--by Candice Miller, by Congressman Visclosky, 
and by so many others who work on Great Lakes issues is wonderful and 
to have this team put together and to see that we have done a better 
job for our Great Lakes in this bill than in past bills.
  By the way, I might say that the lake on which the communities I 
represent are situated, Lake Erie, is the most drawn upon of the lakes 
and the most fragile, and we share her with Canada, so it even gets a 
little more complex, as we move forward.
  I just wanted to commend the gentleman, and I thank the chairman for 
giving me the time. I know the people who are listening from the Great 
Lakes region greatly appreciate the attention and what we do in this 
bill to make sure that those lakes are maintained.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hudson

  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Hudson No. 
36.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the amounts made available by this Act 
     may be used for any program not authorized by law as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     amounts under the headings

[[Page 11708]]

     ``National Nuclear Security Administration'', ``Environmental 
     and Other Defense Activities'', or ``Defense Nuclear 
     Facilities Safety Board''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to offer an amendment 
to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would prohibit the 
funding for any program included that is not authorized by law.
  For far too long, Congress has continued to appropriate spending on 
government programs with little to no oversight. Our country has 
essentially been on autopilot towards a cliff of fiscal and economic 
disaster.

                              {time}  1930

  This has resulted in a massive and out-of-control bureaucracy that is 
wasteful and inefficient. In this bill alone there are 23 unauthorized 
programs. Some of these programs were last authorized in 1981, and 
there are others that have never been authorized. In total, these 
unauthorized and unchecked programs in this legislation receive around 
$25 billion.
  With over $17 trillion in debt, we owe it to our constituents to 
review each agency and program to determine if they are the best use of 
taxpayer dollars to serve the public need.
  Additionally, the rules of the House require that appropriations may 
only be made for purposes authorized by law. The prohibition on 
unauthorized appropriations cannot be enforced because the rules that 
bring appropriation bills to the floor routinely prevent a point of 
order from being raised.
  My amendment prohibits spending on unauthorized programs, but it 
exempts defense-related programs because these were authorized by the 
House when we passed the defense authorization bill in May.
  This amendment parallels with my bill, H.R. 3847, the Federal Sunset 
Act of 2014, which would force Congress to evaluate each agency and 
program and consider recommendations to reform or abolish specific 
entities to ensure the best use of our resources.
  Mr. Chairman, this type of sweeping reform would dramatically 
overhaul the way that Washington budgets and spends hard-earned tax 
dollars and allow Congress to finally take back control, scale back our 
bloated bureaucracy, and provide accountability to the Federal 
Government.
  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 have to tell you that I am sympathetic 
to what the gentleman is trying to do. It is a concern that I have had 
for a number of years. And, in fact, a few years ago, when I was 
chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, we brought down a bill and we 
completely defunded any listing of new species or designation of 
critical habitat because the Endangered Species Act hadn't been 
reauthorized for, like, 26 years or something like that. Our intent was 
not to get rid of the Endangered Species Act or to get rid of the 
designation of critical habitat. Our intent was to send the message 
that the authorizing committees need to do their job.
  I was supported in that, actually, by the chairman of the Resources 
Committee that is in charge of reauthorizing that bill. So far that has 
not been done. They haven't been able to get it done.
  As you know, it is sometimes very difficult to pass reauthorization 
bills for a lot of these different programs, but many of these 
different programs are very, very important. I continue to try to seek 
a way to put pressure on the authorizing committees to actually do 
their job, to get these done.
  So far, just defunding them has not been successful in achieving 
that, and I don't know why that is. It is frustrating both to me and to 
the sponsor of this amendment. Yet this amendment would do great damage 
to the Department of Energy. And I guess you could use this government-
wide.
  There are a lot of programs. You would be surprised which programs 
haven't been reauthorized. I think the Department of State hasn't been 
reauthorized. Most seniors programs have not been reauthorized. If we 
can find a way to put pressure on the authorizing committees to do 
this, I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to try to 
accomplish that goal, but ending the programs this way, I think, would 
be too dramatic of an effect.
  So, while I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do, I 
have to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hudson

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

        At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Each amount made available by this Act is 
     hereby reduced by 7.4831 percent.
       (b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     amounts under the headings ``National Nuclear Security 
     Administration'', ``Environmental and Other Defense 
     Activities'', or ``Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to offer an amendment 
to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would cut spending 
back to the fiscal year 2008 level.
  While I appreciate the work of the Appropriations Committee in 
crafting this important bill that does decrease spending, we must all 
recognize that a cut of $50 million is a rounding error here in 
Washington.
  My amendment makes an across-the-board cut of 7.48 percent to the 
bill in order to decrease the amount back to the fiscal year 2008 
level. The Congressional Budget Office confirms my amendment would 
reduce budget authority by $1.34 billion. Defense accounts are exempt 
from these savings because this House just addressed defense programs 
in the National Defense Authorization Act a few months ago.
  Mr. Chairman, we are on a path to a horrific debt crisis in this 
country. When I ran for Congress, I repeatedly said the first step we 
must take to reduce spending and get our fiscal house in order is to go 
back to 2008 levels, and then let's go program by program and find 
savings, find duplicative programs that we need to cut, find the waste.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, we have got to get our fiscal house in order, 
get ourselves back on track. My amendment does just that, allows us to 
return to a point where we can finally get serious about making real 
substantive cuts to begin to pay down our debt and save future 
generations from this horrific debt crisis that we are on a collision 
course with as things now stand.
  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 guess the first question I would ask is: 
Why 2008 spending levels? Why not 2006 or 2004 or 2000 or 1998 spending 
levels, or 1972 or 1900?
  What we need to do is look at what we are spending now and create 
savings by deciding what is important and what we ought to be doing and 
what are those things that we might like to do but we just don't have 
the money to do, and eliminate those programs or reduce the spending in 
many of those programs, which is what the Appropriations Committee does 
every day.
  When these bills come down here, we have had hearings on the 
different functions of the Federal Government.

[[Page 11709]]

And believe me, if you or I were to sit down and discuss what the 
Federal Government ought to be doing, we would agree on a lot. There 
would be things we would disagree on that I think are essential and 
things that I would disagree that you would think were essential. We 
have 435 Members, represent all corners of this country, and a budget 
is, by its very nature, a compromise in those different opinions on 
what ought to be funded and what the proper role of government is.
  One thing we do know, that we are $17 trillion in debt, and that a 
portion of that, a portion of the solution, is reducing our 
discretionary spending. We have been doing that for the last 4 years, 
and it has been hard work by the Appropriations Committee.
  We also know that you cannot get this budget to balance, no matter 
how hard you try, by reducing discretionary spending. It is not large 
enough, in the overall context of things, to cut it enough to get the 
budget to balance. You have got to do other things. You have got to 
have tax reform. You have got to have entitlement reform. We have to 
look at every area that the government is spending. Right now, I think 
it is about 28 percent of the total expenditures of the Federal 
Government are discretionary spending. About 72 percent of them are 
mandatory. They are on autopilot. They just go on unless we change the 
underlying law.
  So we have got to have the courage to address a lot of the things 
that are driving our debt. I will tell you, you will never balance this 
budget until you get the economy growing again. That is the reality.
  When you looked at the late 1990s, when President Clinton and a 
Republican Congress balanced the budget--or at least that is who was in 
charge at the time. We can argue about who balanced it. But at that 
period of time, it wasn't because Republicans were so conservative that 
they came in and reduced spending and the budget all of a sudden got 
balanced, or it wasn't that President Clinton came in and just raised 
taxes and everything and all of sudden we had a ton more revenue. What 
it was is that the economy grew, and I mean it boomed.
  We had the dot-com bubble, if you remember, where we had more money 
coming in to the Federal Government than we knew what to do with. In 
fact, when we talked about paying off the national debt at the time, I 
actually heard debates from leading economists that said we could pay 
off the national debt too fast--we had that much money coming in--
because the debts wouldn't come due when all the money was coming in.
  But then, of course, that turned around when the dot-com bubble 
burst, and since that, then 9/11 happened and a whole bunch of other 
things and two wars and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  The reality is that you can't balance this budget simply by reducing 
discretionary spending, but I will tell you that the Appropriations 
Committee has been doing their job. They have been looking at the 
proper role of Federal Government, what our responsibilities are, what 
we must fund, and what we should fund, and also at what we would like 
to do and sometimes just don't have the money to do. So those are the 
difficult decisions we have been making, and we continue to do that.
  This type of approach, I think, that would take these accounts, only 
some accounts, back to the 1998 levels, I think, would hurt our 
economy. And, in fact, one of the big parts of our account is the Army 
Corps of Engineers, which does water infrastructure, locks, dams, 
harbor maintenance, all of that kind of stuff which is vital to our 
economy. I don't know that you want to go in and cut that by 7.8 
percent. The President proposed a $1 billion cut in it, a huge cut in 
it. We restored it because we, both Republicans and Democrats, realize 
how important the water infrastructure of this country is.
  Those are the decisions that we make on the Appropriations Committee, 
a committee that I am proud to serve on, that has made, over the last 
several years, some very, very difficult decisions, and will continue 
to do so because, just like every Member of this Congress, we realize 
we can't continue racking up the debt as we have over the last several 
decades.
  So I appreciate that, and I would oppose this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's well-intentioned amendment, and it is obvious he pays 
attention to the math.
  What is important about the math of our deficit is that we haven't 
been growing fast enough to meet the needs of this country. We have a 
demand problem among vast numbers of the American people who aren't 
consuming as fast as they used to because they have lost their jobs, 
they have lost their equity because of the housing crisis, and because, 
if they have gone back to work, they aren't earning as much as they 
used to earn. The middle class is shrinking, as you well know, and the 
ranks of the poor are growing. So we have a demand problem in this 
society.
  The energy question, and the reason I am opposing your amendment is 
because our budget, our allocation is about $34 billion. If you look 
just at this year, we will have over $200 billion in imported energy 
that sucks the wealth out of this country and sends it somewhere else. 
The portion of our bill that deals with energy is not $34 billion, but 
maybe a third of that. So you have got maybe 10, 12 billion, $15 
billion at the most in our bill that deals directly with energy versus 
over $200 billion in terms of energy imports. So we are way out of 
balance as a society.
  The portion of the investment that we make here to invent a new 
energy future is moving us in the right direction but too slowly.
  So do I feel we are going to meet the needs that we need to for the 
future? I fear our generation is failing the next, as hard as we try 
here. If I look at the progress we have made, in 1998, that was the 
first year where America imported over half its energy. The decade 
before that it had been about 40 percent. Before that, the last 30 
years we have hemorrhaged in bringing all this stuff in. This year, 
about 40 percent of what we consume will be imported. So we have moved 
from 1998, importing 50 percent of what we used, to 40 percent.
  I think President Obama has made a difference. Some of my colleagues 
may not agree with that. But with drilling, opening up drilling on 
lands across this country, we have begun to close the gap.
  Drilling our way out of this is not a total solution. We need new 
energy technologies. This bill moves us in that direction.
  Don't allow your amendment to stop us from increasing our ability to 
become energy independent again and create the kind of demand inside 
this economy that will create the jobs that we need for the future to 
heal our middle class and move people out the ranks of poverty. So you 
are well-intentioned, but I think you are out of focus in terms of 
where the real challenge lies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from my 
colleagues. I appreciate, particularly, the work Chairman Simpson and 
his staff have done preparing this bill. I understand the challenges 
they face, and I appreciate the cuts they have made.
  But, Mr. Chairman, we are on a path to absolute ruin in this country. 
If we don't spend one new dollar, we are headed toward a fiscal crisis 
in a very short time, and we have got to get off that path. One way to 
do it is to go back to 2008 spending levels, and then let's do the work 
that the Appropriations Committee has done on this bill. Let's start at 
2008 and look at which programs we want to keep, which programs are 
duplicative, where is the waste.

                              {time}  1945

  But we have got to start somewhere. And, frankly, $50 million is a 
start, but it is not a big enough start. So I would encourage my 
colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page 11710]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, 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.

                          ____________________