[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5885-5914]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016


                             general leave

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2028, and that I may include 
tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 223 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2028.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  2022


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Collins of Georgia in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is my distinct honor to bring the fiscal year 2016 Energy and 
Water bill before you today.
  Before I go into the details, I would like to recognize the hard work 
of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey on this bill and the 
appropriation process. I would also like to thank my ranking member, 
Ms. Kaptur. I appreciate her help, and with it, this bill is better 
because of it.
  The bill provides $35.4 billion for the activities of the Department 
of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and other 
agencies under our jurisdiction. This is a $1.2 billion increase from 
last year's funding level, and $633 million below the request.
  This is a responsible bill that recognizes the importance of 
investing in our Nation's infrastructure and national defense. As we do 
each year, we worked hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives 
from both sides of the aisle.
  The administration's proposal to cut programs of the Army Corps of 
Engineers by $750 million would have led to economic disruptions in our 
ports and waterways as they filled in, and would have left our 
communities and businesses vulnerable to flooding.
  Instead, this bill recognizes the critical work of the Corps and 
provides $5.6 billion for those activities, $865 million above the 
request and $142 million more than last year. The bill makes use of all 
estimated annual revenues from the inland waterways trust fund, for a 
total of $340 million.
  The bill takes a strong stand against the administration's regulatory 
overreach with regards to the Clean Water Act and includes three 
provisions that prohibit changes to the definition of ``fill 
material,'' the definition of ``waters of the United States,'' and the 
permit requirement for certain agricultural activities.
  The nuclear weapons program run by the Department of Energy is funded 
at $8.7 billion, which is $526 million more than last year. This 
increase will support full funding for the stockpile life extension 
programs, and includes an additional $100 million above the request to 
address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance and physical 
security projects.
  The recommendation for Naval Reactors is $1.3 billion, an increase of 
$86 million, and includes full funding for the Ohio class replacement 
submarine.
  This bill makes strong, balanced investments in our energy sector to 
ensure that our constituents continue to have reliable, affordable 
energy.
  Fossil energy, which provided more than 67 percent of our electricity 
production in 2014, received $605 million, a $34 million increase above 
fiscal year 2015.
  Nuclear energy is increased by $23 million above last year. The bill 
also includes $40 million more than last year to ensure an electric 
grid that is both reliable and resilient now and into the future.
  This is a strong bill that will advance our national security 
interests and our economy. I urge everyone to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 5886]]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


[[Page 5887]]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


[[Page 5888]]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


[[Page 5889]]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


[[Page 5890]]


  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin by thanking Chairman Simpson for his bipartisan 
approach in preparing this bill. We have a good committee, and we work 
together.
  I want to thank also our entire staff, Donna Shahbaz and Taunja 
Berquam, the Republican and Democratic Clerks, as well as the rest of 
the Committee staff: Matt Anderson, Angie Giancarlo, Loraine 
Heckenberg, and Perry Yates; and in the personal offices, Sarah Cannon 
and Ryan Steyer. Their countless long hours, late nights, and 
thoughtful insight are so critical to help us prepare this legislation.
  Thirty-seven years ago, President Jimmy Carter, after the first Arab 
oil embargo, as gasoline prices exploded and the U.S. fell into deep, 
deep recession, championed the creation of a U.S. Department of Energy. 
He equated the struggle for America's energy independence as the moral 
equivalent of war, and he was right. He set a goal to steer the United 
States toward energy independence by 1985.
  Today, America still struggles to meet that challenge set out nearly 
four decades ago: reducing our imported energy dependence, curbing our 
voracious appetite for foreign oil, and growing a diverse domestic 
energy portfolio that invests in a self-reliant America and the job 
creation here at home that goes with it.
  Containing our ballooning consumption topped President Carter's 
agenda. But while he successfully reduced consumption during his 
Presidency, his successors lost focus. Demand for gasoline increased by 
40 percent in the 25 years after he left office, a troubling reality, 
as every economic recession since World War II has come on the heels of 
a sharp spike in gasoline prices. I have a chart here that so 
dramatically shows every time gasoline went over $4 a gallon, America, 
in the late seventies, in the early nineties, and then of course in 
2008, fell into deep, deep recession.
  Our work is important. Under the current administration, partnerships 
between the Department of Energy labs and automotive companies have 
finally helped level out demand for gasoline with increasing fuel 
efficiency.
  President Carter also envisioned a new energy horizon for our Nation, 
including renewable energy and conservation. Solar electric capacity 
currently operating in our country is enough to power more than 3.5 
million homes, on average.
  Today, 90 percent of homes in our country are insulated. These are 
important achievements, milestones for our country, and America must 
push onward.
  On the critical issue of reducing foreign oil dependence, President 
Carter's initiative strikingly reduced imports below the target of 6 
million barrels a day, a cut of nearly a third, but imports, again, 
after his Presidency, went on the rise in subsequent decades. Vast 
energy imports continue to represent the single largest component of 
our overall trade deficit.

                              {time}  2030

  I brought a chart down here tonight that shows America has been in 
the depths of deficit in trade, but the portion of it that deals with 
petroleum is its most significant percentage, and it has been for a 
very long time.
  That translates into millions and millions of forfeited jobs here at 
home. Still at $47 billion last year, crude oil imports were roughly 
equal to the next four largest trade deficit categories.
  Around the world, the war over energy rages on. Look only to Europe's 
compromised position toward Ukraine and, of course, oil-rich but 
unstable Iraq. We must position our own Nation to a secure energy 
future.
  Our bill's priority is to strengthen our Nation's energy foundation. 
This bill does responsibly invest in that effort, as well as in our 
nuclear security as well as our water infrastructure. But I must ask: 
At what cost does our bill do this? Our bill is among the first two to 
be considered. There are 10 bills that will follow, and, frankly, they 
were raided to pay for ours.
  This Republican budget will mean that additional funding for this 
bill--1 of 12 appropriation bills on which Congress must act--comes at 
the expense of other vital national needs that will be shortchanged as 
subsequent appropriation bills are brought forward; in total, 12 of 
them.
  For example, our bill funds incredible advanced scientific research. 
But it does so at the expense of the Health and Human Services bill 
that shorts support for our students who will be the next generation of 
scientists.
  Our bill provides for the Department of Energy labs, whose new 
technologies will power our future. But why is the National Institutes 
of Health shortchanged in the Health and Human Services, Education 
Appropriations bill? Its discoveries will save and improve millions of 
lives.
  In our bill, nuclear weapons funding will increase by $500 million. 
Meanwhile, in the Transportation, Housing bill, crumbling cities will 
lose even more resources, elderly housing will remain unfunded, and our 
poorest families will continue struggling to put food on the table.
  Nuclear nonproliferation and environmental cleanup efforts in our 
bill will make our world safer. But on America's streets, police and 
fire departments will remain understaffed, insufficiently trained, and 
underequipped because the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill 
is shorted.
  In our bill, there are no new starts for the Army Corps of Engineers 
infrastructure, whose $60 billion backlog of unfinished projects is 
astounding. But to fund the Corps in our bill, America's roads will be 
shortchanged and remain pothole-ridden, the rail lines clogged, with 
more bridges on the brink of collapse because the Transportation, 
Housing bill has been shortchanged too.
  In our bill, the Bureau of Reclamation will continue to help our 17 
Western States cope with record drought, yet severe underfunding of the 
clean water and drinking water funds in the Department of Interior-EPA 
bill will further threaten the fresh water supply of thousands more 
communities across our country. No amount of duct tape can fix all the 
leaking pipes.
  This bill sacrifices the long-term strength of our Nation by raiding 
other bills that are essential appropriation responsibilities, but that 
is the game plan of the overall Republican budget that has been handed 
us. It is not a prescription for an American success story.
  The Appropriations Committee's discretionary programs, at only 6.8 
percent of our Nation's total economy, or GDP, are too thin a reed on 
which to balance our Nation's accounts.
  The Ways and Means Committee must put its cards on the table too and 
open its vast jurisdiction to scrutiny. Mandatory programs must be put 
on the table. And then the preparation of America's budget will have an 
engine in which all pistons are firing and engaged.
  We want to produce an appropriation bill here tonight, but I find 
myself guilty in a way because I know what is being taken from those 
other subcommittees so vital to our Nation's future.
  Though this Energy and Water bill is respectable, it is only one oar 
in the water pushing our ship of state forward. We can't reach our 
destination without the other 11 oars in the water too. For that 
reason, I urge my colleagues, as we move forward, to consider a ``no'' 
vote on this measure in hopes that a message will be sent strongly. The 
American people deserve all hands on deck and all oars in the water.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
  Mr. BENISHEK. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2028 and would like to 
take this opportunity to talk about the importance of investing in 
American infrastructure.
  This legislation provides support for critical national and regional 
waterways. The Soo Locks, located in my district, are a critical point 
in our Nation's infrastructure. Over 80 million tons of commercial 
commodities travel

[[Page 5891]]

through the Soo Locks each year, including the vast majority of the 
iron ore mined in the United States. The value of the cargo traveling 
through the Soo Locks represents approximately 3.2 percent of the U.S. 
gross domestic product each year.
  Recently, the Army Corps completed a sensitivity analysis on the Soo 
Locks and has indicated that they may begin a new benefit-cost ratio in 
the future.
  This lip service isn't good enough. The impact on our economy, should 
there be a failure of the lock, is too great.
  The study must be completed, and I am confident that it will show a 
need for a replacement lock and construction can get underway.
  I urge the Corps to continue to work with Congress in an efficient 
and transparent fashion so that we can continue to move this process 
forward and get this project going.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to inquire of the Chair, how much time do we 
have remaining on this side, please?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 22 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Idaho has 26 minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I thank subcommittee Chairman Simpson, Ranking 
Member Kaptur, and full committee Chairman Rogers for their work on 
this bill.
  The House Republican ``work harder for less'' budget resolution was 
opposed by every Member on my side of the aisle in part because it 
makes it impossible to provide the funding necessary in the 12 
appropriations bills to grow our economy and give hard-working 
Americans the opportunity to succeed.
  Democrats much preferred the approach taken by the President, calling 
for an end to the sequester and more reasonable and realistic budgeting 
that could help families afford college, a home, and a secure 
retirement.
  The proposed funding level for the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy is dismal and would curtail innovation in clean and 
renewable energy and make us less competitive. This type of investment 
grows our economy and provides opportunity to hard-working Americans. 
But under the Republican proposal, funding would be slashed by $266 
million compared to the 2015 level.
  A number of other areas fall far short of the President's proposal, 
including $82.6 million less to modernize and secure the electric grid 
and $240 million less for scientific research critical to addressing 
long-term energy needs.
  These levels are above the current enacted levels; but by failing to 
address sequestration, the majority is missing an opportunity to 
further invest in critical initiatives that create jobs and make 
American families more secure.
  Given the difficulty in resolving funding disputes, I am deeply 
disappointed that the majority also, once again, needlessly included 
controversial policy riders.
  An annual appropriations bill is not the place to make sweeping 
changes to environmental protection or gun laws.
  Despite the fact that it streamlines existing activities to protect 
2.8 million ocean industry jobs and $282 billion in GDP generated by 
ocean industries in coastal States, the National Ocean Policy would be 
blocked. I do not understand how any public good is served by thwarting 
efficiency measures that bring together the best ecological, economic, 
and stakeholder-driven data.
  There are egregious attacks on the Clean Water Act, including locking 
in place a state of confusion about the scope of pollution control 
programs and sacrificing water quality for small streams and wetlands 
that contribute to the drinking water of one in three Americans.
  I should not have to remind my majority colleagues that similar 
provisions have imperiled this bill in the past. The administration is, 
once again, on record with veto threats of nearly identical language, 
and leading environmental groups have stated that these and other 
riders are bad policies that will put Americans' health and safety at 
risk.
  I am truly amazed that the majority would willfully go down this path 
again. Despite the many shortcomings, there are positive aspects, 
particularly the Army Corps of Engineers. In its most recent report 
card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the U.S. a D-plus 
and estimated that $2.6 trillion in investments are needed by 2020.
  I am very grateful that Chairman Simpson included $142 million more 
than the current level and $865 million more than the President 
requested for the Army Corps.
  While a number of priorities in the bill receive sufficient funding, 
due to major shortcomings, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chair, I was elected to fight for the people of the Third 
Congressional District. That is what I am doing, and that is what this 
bill does.
  As members of the Appropriations Committee, we are using the power of 
the purse. This bill provides full funding for key Army Corps of 
Engineers projects in my district, nearly $26 million for projects in 
southern West Virginia--East Lynn, Summersville, Bluestone, and Beech 
Fork lakes--all critically important.
  This bill supports the excellent work of the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, making a real difference in real people's lives. This bill 
actually adds an additional $5 million over last year's funding.
  And this bill also says no to funding for the administration's war on 
coal, no to expanding the definitions of the ``waters of the U.S.,'' 
and no to new regulations on fill material.
  This is a good bill, and I urge its passage.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the very, very able 
gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Honda), a distinguished 
member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chair, this was my first year serving on the 
subcommittee. And I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur 
for their leadership throughout this process, for the collaborative way 
they had worked with the members of the subcommittee on this bill.
  I support the increases in the bill for the important investigations 
and construction accounts of the Army Corps of Engineers, which are 
increasingly important for dealing with the effects of climate change 
and have been underfunded for too long. I hope we can fully address the 
Corps' budgetary needs as this bill moves forward.
  I am pleased that the bill includes language I sought to help us 
increase access to solar and other renewable energy sources for low-
income families. This inclusiveness is critically important if we are 
going to transform to a 21st century energy economy that benefits all 
Americans.
  I also appreciate the inclusion language supporting development of 
new photonics technologies to enable exascale computing breakthroughs.
  Funding DOE's Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists 
program at the President's request level is essential for programs to 
develop K-12 STEM educators, including the Albert Einstein 
Distinguished Educator Fellowship, now in its 25th year.

                              {time}  2045

  The funding level in this bill should allow for continued growth of 
the Einstein Fellows program, which brings exceptional STEM educators 
to Washington for a year to work in Federal agencies and in Congress 
helping to shape STEM education programs. There are, however, damaging 
cuts to some programs and others funded below the President's budget 
request.
  These decisions will take us in the wrong direction. We need to boost 
the funding levels for renewable energy programs that are our path to a 
clean energy future. We also must address the shortfalls in the Science 
Laboratories infrastructure funding that will

[[Page 5892]]

hamper operations at user facilities such as light sources and science 
and nanoscience centers and engineering centers.
  I want to voice my disagreement with several of the policy riders in 
the bill. We shouldn't be blocking work to clarify the scope of the 
Clean Water Act, and we should be fostering collaboration between the 
Federal, State, and local agencies and ocean stakeholders about how to 
share this vital resource and not hindering it.
  I know my chairman was faced with a difficult task, and his approach 
to developing this bill has shown these issues, which are important for 
our Nation and for our planet, the respect they deserve.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member 
Kaptur, as this bill moves forward, to resolve some of these issues in 
a bipartisan fashion so we can send a bill to the President that all of 
us can support.
  Mr. SIMPSON. It is my pleasure to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr), a good friend of mine, for the purpose of 
colloquy.
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, as we continue to cut, squeeze, and trim the Federal 
budget, we have a responsibility to ensure that our Federal agencies 
operate as efficiently as possible.
  I know that we both have examples in our district where multiple 
Federal, State, and local agencies overlap in their management 
authority, often causing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, which ends 
up costing taxpayers more money while accomplishing less.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you as we move this bill 
forward to improve the transparency and efficiency of Federal agencies. 
They need to talk to each other and work together so that our 
constituents are not forced to sort through conflicting requirements. I 
hope you can help me.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from California for inviting me to 
speak on this important matter. I agree that the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill should strive to make our Federal agencies work 
more efficiently with each other and work together.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), a very, very hard-working and passionate member 
of our Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank our ranking member, first of all, for yielding, 
but secondly, for her unwavering leadership on this subcommittee, but 
also on each and every issue that we are addressing in this bill and 
for her leadership just in general, in terms of making sure that people 
who have been marginalized and who really have been victimized by this 
terrible recession really have opportunities into the middle class. 
Thank you very much, Congresswoman Kaptur.
  Let me thank the Chair for including language to recognize the 
importance of workplace diversity in the Department of Energy's 
National Laboratories and encouraging the Department to develop and 
broaden partnerships with minority-serving institutions, including 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  Mr. Chairman, however, I am concerned that not only does this bill 
maintain harmful sequester levels for funding, it also continues the 
pattern of inserting unnecessary policy riders into spending bills, 
including allowing guns to be carried on all Corps of Engineers lands. 
These riders are harmful and further complicate the already difficult 
appropriations process.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of trying to roll back vital environmental 
protections, we need to be proactive about preserving our environment 
for the next generation. We need to make more investments in clean 
energy like solar, wind, and geothermal.
  We need to do this to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels that 
release harmful, toxic methane and carbon. Pollution and smog must not 
be a normal way of life for our children and our children's children.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to yield 30 seconds to myself to just thank 
the gentlewoman very much for her comments and to say how very much I 
enjoyed visiting the Berkeley lab with her out in California and 
knowing the work that they are doing not just for California, but for 
the whole country.
  It has been really a pleasure to work with you and to support that 
lab and its activities.
  Ms. LEE. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. I just thank the gentlewoman, first of all, for her visit, 
but also for really understanding very deeply what our labs are about 
and what they are really conducting not only for my district and for 
California, but for the country and for the world in terms of their 
research.
  I just really want to thank you because the feedback, of course, from 
my lab is how smart and how committed you are.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 90 seconds to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a good friend of mine and 
a member of the Appropriations Committee. He is the chairman of the 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Before yielding to Mr. Diaz-Balart from Florida, I would like to 
thank the gentleman for all his tireless work on behalf of the 
Everglades, truly a remarkable spot. He is a true leader on these 
issues, and he continues to restore the Everglades to their natural 
state.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I actually came here to thank Chairman 
Simpson for putting together this great bill, a responsible bill and, 
again, for putting up with me and working with me on issues dealing 
with Everglades restoration. I don't have to tell anybody here that is 
a national treasure. It is important not only for southern Florida's 
drinking water, but also for our economy.
  I also want to specifically thank the chairman for his help in the 
Herbert Hoover Dike, which is crucial, again, for the folks in that 
area.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill. Chairman Simpson has a 
very difficult task. He has done a spectacular job. Again, thank you, 
sir, for working with me on these important issues.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Once again, 
congratulations on bringing this important bill to the floor.
  I wanted to thank you for the chance to really engage and for your 
willingness to address an issue of critical importance to the Nation's 
innovation and competitiveness, that is the full utilization of the 
Department of Energy's radiation light source national user facilities.
  Unfortunately, the funding level in this bill for DOE's light source 
scientific user facilities would not utilize our Federal investment to 
the fullest effect. This would lead to facilities temporarily shutting 
down and laying off and furloughing scientific staff.
  The fiscal year '15 enacted level for this program was $447 million. 
Now, the President has requested $477 million, but the House mark is 
$443 million.
  My colleagues and I look forward to working with you to address this 
issue in conference and with the Senate and to work toward a higher 
mark for this account, at least higher than fiscal year '15 and 
hopefully closer to the President's budget.
  Again, I want to thank you for your leadership and for your 
willingness to work with us on this important issue.
  Mr. HONDA. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Kaptur, I echo my 
colleague's comments and thank you for your collegial leadership of the 
subcommittee.
  Funding the synchrotron light sources adequately is a competitiveness 
issue for the Nation's economic well-being. Companies from my district, 
throughout Silicon Valley and

[[Page 5893]]

around the Nation, utilize these unique, large-scale scientific 
facilities to advance next generation technologies and to grow our 
Nation's economy.
  Other nations are catching up. We must make sure to make the 
investments that retain our leadership. Thank you for your willingness 
to address this issue.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank you for bringing this important issue to the 
subcommittee's attention. I look forward to working with Ranking Member 
Kaptur and all of you to support the Nation's light source user 
facilities as we move forward into conference.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I also appreciate the Members bringing this to our 
attention, having visited more than one of these facilities and look 
forward to working with the chairman to support this very worthy 
activity.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a new Member of Congress 
who has been very active and who has been newly appointed to the Rules 
Committee for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, Hanford is the Nation's largest and most 
complex Department of Energy defense nuclear cleanup site. I have 
greatly appreciated your willingness to work with me to ensure funding 
for this important effort.
  The restoration of funds for cleanup along the Columbia River 
Corridor, which is legally required and a priority for the mid-Columbia 
region, puts those projects on a very strong path forward.
  I also appreciate the funding provided for the Office of River 
Protection. As the final bill is developed for fiscal year '16, I would 
like to continue working with you to ensure that all of the work that 
the Federal Government is legally obligated to do is realized.
  I am particularly concerned with ensuring that work is able to 
progress on retrieving Hanford's tank waste and preparing to feed an 
operational waste treatment plant while providing sufficient resources 
to meet near-term regulatory requirements in the tank farms.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Washington for his strong advocacy for these important cleanup 
activities. I agree they are probably the most important in this 
country.
  I look forward to working with him to ensure that activities at 
Hanford's tank farms and at the waste treatment plant receive the 
funding required to move forward safely, efficiently, and in a timely 
manner.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with 
him, as well as the ranking member from Ohio, in the future.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I have no further requests for time, so I yield back the 
balance of my time in the interests of moving forward with the bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2028, the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016.
  Not only does the underlying bill support funding for critical 
infrastructure in our country, but also includes several important 
provisions a majority of the Members in this body are concerned with.
  Section 105 provides an excellent backstop for ensuring the EPA's 
controversial waters of United States rule does not go forward in its 
current state. This rule is nothing more than a Federal power grab for 
the EPA and it flies in the face of two Supreme Court decisions. The 
agencies themselves have admitted to Congress, in multiple hearings, 
that the proposed rule has created confusion and uncertainty.
  I want to thank the chairman for including this necessary backstop 
provision that will help stop this rule from wreaking havoc on farmers, 
businesses, families, and the entire regulated community. This rule 
could potentially roll back the progress we have made in our Nation's 
water quality by instituting burdensome permitting costs and 
unnecessary red tape.
  Another important provision prohibits the Corps from using funds for 
open lake placement of dredge material in Lake Erie, unless the 
material is approved under the State water quality certification 
program. We all know the benefits of dredging and how vital it is to 
the Great Lakes system's ecosystem, businesses, recreation, and 
tourism.
  We must ensure dredged material is safely repurposed for beneficial 
use or placed in a confined disposal facility. If dredged sediment is 
placed in Lake Erie now, research shows increased PCB levels in the 
fish could cause significant setbacks to the recreational community.
  In a time where our Great Lakes' water quality is threatened by algae 
and other contaminants, we must ensure we do not add to the problem.
  I am also pleased to see my commonsense legislation included in the 
underlying bill to grant law-abiding gun owners the ability to exercise 
their Second Amendment rights when they are legally camping, hunting, 
and fishing on Army Corps property.
  I thank Representative Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for 
recognizing the importance of these provisions and for putting together 
a bill that sets appropriate levels.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) for the purpose of a 
colloquy.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Simpson for providing me 
time to engage in this colloquy.
  Through working with the chairman and others, the House was able to 
pass the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act last 
year, and the legislation was signed into law.

                              {time}  2100

  This legislation is designed to bring manufacturing in our country to 
the next level by increasing global competitiveness and training the 
workforce of tomorrow through the establishment of centers throughout 
the country.
  As some of these centers lie within the purview of the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill, I want to take this opportunity to thank the 
chairman for working with me on this issue and to clarify that this 
bill we are considering today funds the establishment of at least one 
new center that can be coordinated with the Department of Commerce.
  With that, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate my friend's leadership on the Revitalize 
American Manufacturing and Innovation Act and can confirm that this 
bill funds the establishment of at least one new center. I look forward 
to working with you on these issues in the future and as this bill 
moves forward.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SIMPSON. With that, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have no more 
requests for time on general debate and look forward to moving forward 
on the bill.
  Like my colleague from Ohio, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the Appropriations Committee 
and the Chairman for acting to impose greater discipline on the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
  We know that the future of nuclear power in the United States depends 
on having a credible nuclear safety regulator, and depends on the 
industry continuing to perform at a high level of safety. We feel 
strongly that the agency must continue its core mission of protecting 
public health and safety, but NRC must do so in a manner that does not 
add to the economic headwinds the industry faces.
  I support the Committee's direction to require the NRC's rulemaking 
process to be Commission-driven in order to provide greater discipline, 
transparency, efficiency, and accountability.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I rise to congratulate Chairman Mike 
Simpson and Ranking Member Marcy Kaptur for their

[[Page 5894]]

leadership in preparing the FY 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill. Both of you deserve thanks for your hard work putting together a 
bill that supports programs critical to our nation's security, safety, 
and economic competitiveness. Your bill prioritizes investments in our 
critical nuclear security enterprise, and creates more opportunities to 
advance American competitiveness, and assumes the key role of the Army 
Corps of Engineers in resolving so many issues important to every state 
and Congressional District in the nation: navigation and flooding 
emergencies.
  To my mind, the defense programs included in your bill are its single 
most critical responsibility. The bill funds Weapons Activities at the 
National Nuclear Security Administration to ensure that the Secretary 
of Energy has the investments he needs to certify to the President that 
our nuclear stockpile is reliable. It is essential that we provide the 
safety, security and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons 
stockpile. These weapons are a vital part of our national defense 
postures and they are essential to meeting our commitments to our 
allies, even if they are never used. They are a deterrent.
  The bill also funds Naval Reactors, which supports our U.S. Navy's 
nuclear-powered Fleet including the Ohio class replacement submarine 
and our aircraft carriers and other submarines.
  The Appropriations committee has always provided vigorous support for 
these national defense priorities and I thank Chairman Simpson for his 
work in this area.
  Additionally, scientific research at the Department of Energy 
strengthens American competitiveness and enables true breakthroughs in 
the energy sector, and the bill preserves and protects it, especially 
in fusion energy, nuclear and fossil energy, and areas that will 
bolster our nation's electric grid. The bill also protects public 
safety and keeps America literally open for business by providing for 
the Army Corps of Engineers to meet the need for navigable rivers and 
open and accessible ports.
  Finally, a word about Yucca Mountain. Many Members of Congress have 
been advocates for Yucca Mountain as we consider it essential to our 
nation's energy independence. Decades of analysis, millions of 
documents, and billions of taxpayer dollars have been put towards the 
scientific examination of Yucca Mountain as a safe and secure geologic 
repository for nuclear waste. Your bill includes funding to keep the 
license processing for Yucca Mountain moving forward and it also 
prohibits the Administration from moving ahead with any other plan not 
authorized by Congress. This will ensure that we keep Congress in the 
driver's seat for nuclear waste policy.
  Mr. Chair, former chairman of this subcommittee, I know the challenge 
that you and Ms. Kaptur faced crafting this bill. I commend you on the 
fine bill that you put together. This is a fiscally conservative bill, 
which funds critical national security, jobs, and infrastructure 
priorities. This bill deserves our support.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Beyer, 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle are once again attempting 
to substitute Congress' will outside its purview, this time by 
prohibiting the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA from finalizing 
their Waters of the U.S. rule.
  This is nothing new.
  Earlier this year they tried to get into the local permitting process 
by forcing states to accept the Keystone XL pipeline. As a former local 
government official you can imagine how shocked I was at that effort.
  And let us not forget how often they seek to tell the District of 
Columbia, and its residents, how they should be governed.
  Now, my friends wish to halt federal rulemaking prescribed under the 
Clean Water Act, almost a decade in the making and after more than a 
million public comments and numerous public hearings and stakeholder 
meetings, just before a final rule is released.
  Remember, it was Congress and the Supreme Court who asked for 
clarification for what should be defined as ``navigable waters.''
  Today, nearly 60 percent of our nation's streams and millions of 
acres of wetlands currently lack clear protection from pollution under 
the Clean Water Act. Current loopholes put at risk 2 million miles of 
our streams, threatening the drinking water of 117 million Americans, 
and jeopardizing 20 million acres of wetlands.
  The proposed rule would provide an estimated $388 million to $514 
million annually of benefits to the public, including reducing 
flooding, filtering pollution, providing wildlife habitat, supporting 
hunting and fishing, and recharging groundwater. The public benefits 
significantly outweigh the costs for mitigating impacts to streams and 
wetlands, and taking steps to reduce pollution to our waterways.
  Why don't we let the rulemaking process finish and then we can see if 
it needs to be fixed. The Beyer-Connolly amendment will do that. But 
let's not jump to judgement.
  Congress has a role to play. But it shouldn't be as an intransigent 
obstacle.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I am concerned that the Fiscal Year 2016 
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill limits investment in renewable 
energy and energy efficiency at the expense of increased investment in 
fossil fuels, risking the future of America's clean energy future. It 
is vitally important that the United States continue to make strong 
investments in clean energy technologies, so that we can move away from 
reliance on dirty and expensive fossil fuels. By adhering to sequester 
level caps for non-defense spending risks the future of an American 
clean energy economy.
  In addition to the spending cuts, I am deeply concerned about 
misguided rider included in the bill that would prevent funding of the 
National Ocean Policy, which permits better coordination among federal 
agencies responsible for coastal and ocean planning.
  In 2011, ocean industries supported 2.8 million jobs and $282 billion 
in GDP. Our 21st century economy depends on our oceans, but there is 
increasing pressure on and competition for resources. Ocean planning 
seeks to reduce these conflicts and strengthen the resilience of ocean 
communities and ecosystems.
  In the Northeast, our Regional Ocean Council has allowed our states 
to pool resources and businesses to have a voice in decision-making 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 state and local governments a voice in the ocean 
planning process is smart public policy, and I hope that as the 
Appropriations process moves forward we will remove this harmful 
provision from the Energy and Water Bill.
  I would like to note that this year's Energy and Water bill includes 
$10 million for environmental infrastructure projects within the Army 
Corps of Engineers' General Construction account. These funds are 
vitally important to communities that desperately require improvements 
to their water and sanitation infrastructure, and may require 
additional funds to do so.
  We require, quite rightly, water and sewage treatment plants to 
maintain federally mandated standards to keep our water supply safe and 
sustainable. About 72% of the population is served by sewage treatment 
plants, but 3.8 million of those people are served by facilities 
providing less than secondary treatment, which is a basic requirement 
by federal law. Often, the financial burden to meet these requirements 
falls on state and local governments. This can leave communities 
experiencing financial distress with outdated infrastructure and facing 
down huge costs to bring them in line with requirements. And this 
affects all of us, as aging wastewater management systems discharge 
billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each 
year.
  For example, in my home state of Rhode Island a large-scale 
restoration is underway to improve the 143 year old waterworks 
infrastructure that runs through Cranston and Providence and serves a 
majority of the state. According to local news reports the project may 
take up to 40 years. In the northern part of our state, Woonsocket is 
planning its own major reconstruction of its water infrastructure, 
built in the 1930s, as they grapple with aging equipment that can no 
longer comply with environmental regulations.
  I applaud the excellent planning and fundraising being done in Rhode 
Island to meet the needs of our aging water infrastructure, and I note 
the benefit that having access to Army Corps of Engineers expertise and 
funds adds to local governments striving to meet the infrastructure 
needs of their communities.
  I urge my colleagues to include robust funding for Army Corps 
environmental infrastructure programs in the final Energy and water 
spending bill.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment each amendment shall 
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. No pro 
forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
designees

[[Page 5895]]

may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the 
purpose of debate. The chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2028

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, namely:

                   TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

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

                             investigations

       For expenses necessary where authorized by law for the 
     collection and study of basic information pertaining to river 
     and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore 
     protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related needs; 
     for surveys and detailed studies, and plans and 
     specifications of proposed river and harbor, flood and storm 
     damage reduction, shore protection, and aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration projects, and related efforts prior to 
     construction; for restudy of authorized projects; and for 
     miscellaneous investigations, and, when authorized by law, 
     surveys and detailed studies, and plans and specifications of 
     projects prior to construction, $110,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, 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 to offer an amendment which will help 
reduce the large backlog of important Army Corps of Engineers projects.
  This amendment transfers $1 million from the Department of Energy's 
Departmental administration budget to the Corps of Engineers' 
investigations budget to bring it closer to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted appropriation level.
  The investigation account funds the planning and environmental 
studies required under law for important Corps projects prior to 
construction. There is a large backlog of worthwhile Corps projects 
throughout the country that are essential to improving infrastructures 
for communities, improving ecosystem restoration, providing clean 
water, and expanding much-needed water storage. These projects are 
especially critical to the drought-stricken communities in the West and 
many other parts of the Nation.
  The committee showed great insight in recognizing that the 
administration's request for the Corps' investigation budget was much 
too low. Having said that, the amount appropriated in this bill is 
still $12 million below the fiscal year 2015 levels. At a time of 
historic drought and major water challenges, we shouldn't be reducing 
investigation dollars that will allow worthwhile community projects to 
move forward.
  The committee has provided significant safeguards in the report to 
ensure the funds transferred by this amendment will go to the studies 
in planning for the most viable projects. Thus, support for this 
amendment is a definitive action we can take to directly support timely 
development of critical infrastructure projects.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I thank the distinguished chair and ranking member for their work on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              construction

       For expenses necessary for the construction of river and 
     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects 
     authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, and plans 
     and specifications, of such projects (including those 
     involving participation by States, local governments, or 
     private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by 
     law (but such detailed studies, and plans and specifications, 
     shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
     construction); $1,631,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the 
     Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived 
     from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by 
     Public Law 104-303; and of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover one-half of the costs of construction, replacement, 
     rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects 
     shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, except 
     as otherwise specifically provided for in law.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, 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 to offer another commonsense 
amendment that will help reduce the large backlog of important Army 
Corps of Engineers' projects by providing additional resources to the 
Corps' construction budget.
  I applaud the committee for recommending resources for the Corps of 
Engineers' construction budget above the President's budget request, 
but the recommended level in this bill for construction is still $8.5 
million beneath the fiscal year 2015 level.
  A devastating drought is currently plaguing the West. CRS estimates 
that more than 93 percent of the State of California is experiencing 
severe drought. Other scientists have claimed this is the worst drought 
for some Western States in more than 100 years and that approximately 
60 percent of the West is ``experiencing moderate drought or worse, 
affecting 52 million people.''
  At a time of historic drought and major water challenges, we 
shouldn't be reducing construction dollars for Corps projects that 
improve infrastructure for local communities, improve ecosystem 
restoration, provide clean water, and expand much-needed water storage.
  The committee report on this bill raised some important concerns 
about the draconian cuts proposed by this administration to the Corps 
of Engineers' construction budget.
  From the committee report: ``The construction account would see the 
largest dollar reduction ($467,489,000) and largest percentage 
reduction (29 percent) . . . As mentioned above, the budget request is 
woefully inadequate for meeting the critical water resource 
infrastructure needs of this Nation. Numerous continuing studies and 
construction projects will be suspended or slowed, leaving many 
communities vulnerable to floods and coastal storms longer than 
necessary and hindering economic growth and international 
competitiveness . . . Once again, the administration's claims to 
understand the importance of infrastructure ring hollow when it comes 
to water resource infrastructure investments . . . Once again, however, 
the committee rejects the low priority placed on infrastructure in the 
budget request.''
  The committee has provided significant safeguards in the report that 
will

[[Page 5896]]

ensure that the funds transferred by this amendment go to the best 
projects, including those that will prevent future flooding and storm 
damage, create jobs, and enhance national, regional, or local economic 
development.
  Support for this amendment is definitive action that we can take to 
directly support timely development of critical water projects that 
benefit communities throughout the Nation.
  I thank the distinguished chair and ranking member.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. But I will tell you it is easy to draft amendments and 
take money out of the department of the administration--who is not 
going to be in support of that--and put it to other things.
  I can tell you this committee has worked hard to address the issues. 
We know about the drought in California and other places, and we have 
done a good job in trying to fund this. If the gentleman wants to do 
this in here and take money out of the department of administration and 
the committee wants to do it, it is kind of meaningless, but I 
understand what the gentleman is trying to do.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida

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

       Page 3. line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chair and 
ranking member for their extremely hard work on the underlying bill and 
their ongoing commitment to Everglades restoration.
  I rise because, at this very moment in my district in Florida, toxic 
blue-green algae is threatening the environment in our area. The 
amendment I am offering, along with the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Clawson, will enhance the Army Corps' environmental restoration efforts 
in south Florida and help put a stop to this vicious cycle once and for 
all.
  The Everglades watershed stretches as far north as Orlando, where 
runoff eventually flows into Lake Okeechobee. Due to rapid development, 
the natural flow of water from north to south in the system has been 
severely disrupted, and we are inundated with freshwater discharges 
that harm our communities to the east and to the west of the lake.
  Meanwhile, Florida Bay desperately needs freshwater to restore its 
natural ecology. However, moving clean water south to restore the 
entire ecosystem is no small feat.
  I had the chance to explain to President Obama last week on his first 
trip to the Everglades how freshwater discharges are hurting our 
community while freshwater is desperately needed in the Florida Bay, 
and how critical the Everglades restoration efforts are throughout the 
whole system.
  Supporting the Corps' ongoing work in the Everglades is key for water 
quality in the Caloosahatchee River watershed, which includes Ft. Myers 
and Cape Coral, the St. Lucie River watershed in the Treasure Coast and 
Palm Beaches that I represent, and throughout Florida.
  Right now, a toxic blue-green algae bloom pictured here is 
threatening waterways in the most biodiverse estuary in all of North 
America. When toxic blooms hit our water, health advisories like this 
are posted--right here--warning people do not touch the very water that 
is the center of their livelihoods.
  Supporting the Corps' Everglades work can help move restoration 
projects closer to completion, like the C-44 reservoir in Martin 
County, which will help hold water back from further harming the local 
population and ecologically fragile areas.
  This is not the first time I have come to the House floor to address 
this issue. Every year, our communities face this same threat. And to 
the people that I represent, it is unsustainable, and it is time to 
stop this before lasting damage is done.
  I, along with many people committed to protecting our water and our 
community, will not rest until the health advisories posted along our 
rivers and estuaries disappear once and for all. These aren't just our 
precious Everglades in Florida. This ecosystem is America's River of 
Grass with no place like it in the world. It must be protected at all 
costs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson), who has 
been a tireless champion on Everglades restoration.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Thank you to Representative Murphy for his 
great leadership on this issue, and particularly thank you to the 
chairman, Mr. Simpson, for his leadership and success in this endeavor.
  Mr. Chairman, my first steps towards Congress began one summer day 2 
years ago while I was wading in the Gulf of Mexico with my father, who 
is in the autumn of his lifetime. Walking beside my dad in knee-deep 
depth, the old vet and I couldn't see our own toes because of the dirty 
water. Dad looked at me, and he said, ``Son, do something about this.''
  The Gulf had been contaminated by the discharge from Lake Okeechobee. 
The algae was in full bloom--toxic algae in our Gulf. Two years later, 
I humbly stand here and ask you: Please join me. Let's do something 
about this.
  Clean water is both an environmental issue and a business issue. The 
dirty discharges damage our tourism, our economy, our drinking water, 
our beaches, our businesses, and our national treasure, the Everglades. 
The Federal Government and the State of Florida are already working to 
restore the Everglades with a larger freshwater supply, but we can do 
more.
  I am asking you to help here by voting ``yes'' on this Murphy-Clawson 
amendment in order to help expedite projects like the critical South 
Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Herbert Hoover Dike.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Duffy

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

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

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this 
amendment and to speak in support of a program that is important to my 
constituents and to all of those around the Great Lakes.
  The Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration, also known as 
``GLFER,'' is responsible for the planning, design, and construction of 
projects to protect and restore the fisheries and aquatic habitat of 
the Great Lakes. These projects include the restoration of riverside 
and wetland habitats, the construction of fish passages, and improving 
spawning and nursery habitats. A critical part of this program is that 
it requires a 35 percent

[[Page 5897]]

cost share from a local sponsor. So it is not just Federal money. It is 
local money as well to fund this project.
  GLFER is widely supported by those with a stake in the Great Lakes, 
including the Great Lakes Commission, the Alliance for the Great Lakes, 
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the Great Lakes fishing 
community.
  Al House of Washburn, Wisconsin, one of my constituents and a board 
member of the Apostle Islands Sport Fisherman's Association, recently 
shared with me the importance of this program. He recounted: ``In 
recent discussions with groups in Lake Superior's basin, sport 
fishermen are in unanimous agreement that the GLFER program offers 
invaluable support to fishery habitat and ecosystem restoration 
projects that maintain and restore the health of our Great Lakes.''
  This program has broad bipartisan support and the backing of 
environmental, industry, and recreational groups. Not often in this 
House do we see this kind of support across the spectrum.
  It is authorized under WRRDA, similar to other regional restoration 
programs in south Florida and the Louisiana coastline, which are funded 
by the Army Corps of Engineers in this bill. Unfortunately, for the 
past several years, the Corps has chosen to include no funding for this 
program in the budget request. This is despite the calls from Congress 
to do so. In fact, language in the final funding bill for fiscal year 
2015 urged the Corps to ``budget for this aquatic habitat restoration 
program in future budget submissions as it is important to the overall 
Great Lakes Restoration effort.'' Again, they didn't include it in 
their budget.
  This amendment is intended to ensure that the Army Corps actually 
provides the $10 million necessary for the GLFER program in this fiscal 
year. This program should not have to rely on funding from other Great 
Lakes programs or wait for the leftovers of the Corps' to fund this 
very important project. I would hope that the Corps would follow the 
advice of Congress and actually account for this program in next year's 
budget request--actually listen to us.
  I want to thank Chair Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their 
work on this legislation and for their support on this issue. I would 
urge my colleagues to support our Great Lakes, to support our fish, and 
to support this bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my fellow Great Lakes 
member that I appreciate his coming down here tonight at this late hour 
and representing the interests of the Great Lakes. We need stronger 
voices, and you, obviously, are one of those.
  I am so glad that you are calling the Corps to task to pay attention 
to our region and to all of the improvements that are necessary to deal 
with the most vital body of freshwater on the face of the Earth and, 
certainly, in our country. I want to thank you very much, Congressman 
Duffy, for your proposal. I think that the Corps will hear you. Many of 
us want to work with you and to do what we can to help not just this 
generation but those that follow in having access to this globally 
critical, precious freshwater resource that we call the Great Lakes. 
Thank you so very much for coming down this evening.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Kaptur for her support of this 
amendment and for all of her work on the Great Lakes.
  It is remarkable that we have such a wonderful bipartisan group that 
has a wide variety of opinions in this Chamber but that comes together 
to support the health and well-being of our Great Lakes and of our 
fisheries. Thank you for your support.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   mississippi river and tributaries

       For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects 
     and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley 
     below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, 
     $275,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of 
     eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors 
     shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Crawford

  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 4, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $27,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $96,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Arkansas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. First, let me thank the committee chairman and the 
staffs for their hard work in putting this bill together. I know it has 
taken a lot of time and the work of a lot of people to get it here 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment restores funding for the Mississippi River 
and Tributaries Project, which is the largest flood control project in 
the world, to its FY15 enacted levels. The MR&T is critical in 
preventing widely devastating floods and to ensure this waterway 
remains open and able to carry the massive stream of trade that is so 
vital to American commerce. The Mississippi River is a thriving 
economic thoroughfare in the United States, with billions of tons of 
cargo being transported up and down the river each year.
  The MR&T has played an integral role in protecting the lower 
Mississippi valley from floods and enabling continuous navigation along 
the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Since its inception in 1928, 
our Nation has received $45 for every dollar invested while preventing 
$612 billion in flood damages and protecting 4 million residents of the 
lower Mississippi River valley. The success of the project was on 
display in 2011, when the system withheld historic flooding that 
exceeded the benchmark set by the very 1927 flood which spurred the 
creation of the MR&T.
  Not only does the MR&T protect lives and property in the lower 
Mississippi valley, but it also promotes navigation along the river and 
its tributaries, and it helps support a vibrant agriculture economy. 
Over 500 million tons of cargo move on the Mississippi River system 
each year, saving billions of dollars in domestic transportation costs 
and giving U.S. businesses a natural advantage.
  At a time when the fiscal environment forces us to carefully evaluate 
where every dollar goes, I believe it is prudent to sufficiently fund 
projects like those covered under MR&T, which give taxpayers a return 
on their investment. I urge the support of this critical project.
  I thank the chairman for his consideration, and I look forward to 
continuing to work with the committee and the chairman through the 
appropriations process on this critical investment in the Midsouth 
region.
  Mr. Chair, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       operation and maintenance

       For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
     care of existing river and

[[Page 5898]]

     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, and related projects authorized by law; 
     providing security for infrastructure owned or operated by 
     the Corps, including administrative buildings and 
     laboratories; maintaining harbor channels provided by a 
     State, municipality, or other public agency that serve 
     essential navigation needs of general commerce, where 
     authorized by law; surveying and charting northern and 
     northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and 
     straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 
     navigation, $3,058,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of eligible operation and maintenance costs for 
     coastal harbors and channels, and for inland harbors shall be 
     derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; of which such 
     sums as become available from the special account for the 
     Corps of Engineers established by the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived from that 
     account for resource protection, research, interpretation, 
     and maintenance activities related to resource protection in 
     the areas at which outdoor recreation is available; and of 
     which such sums as become available from fees collected under 
     section 217 of Public Law 104-303 shall be used to cover the 
     cost of operation and maintenance of the dredged material 
     disposal facilities for which such fees have been collected: 
     Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount of funds 
     provided for each of the programs, projects, or activities 
     funded under this heading shall not be allocated to a field 
     operating activity prior to the beginning of the fourth 
     quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for use by 
     the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency activities as 
     the Chief of Engineers determines to be necessary and 
     appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers shall allocate 
     during the fourth quarter any remaining funds which have not 
     been used for emergency activities proportionally in 
     accordance with the amounts provided for the programs, 
     projects, or activities.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

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

       Page 4, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $36,306,000)''.
       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $36,720,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to offer 
an amendment, along with my friend, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Hahn), to ensure that the Federal Government meets its obligations 
to our ports, to our harbors, and, frankly, to the American people.
  Just last year, this body overwhelmingly passed the Water Resources 
Reform and Development Act, WRRDA, by a vote of 412-4. It was later 
then signed into law by President Obama. WRRDA includes a glide path to 
increase harbor maintenance funding to a level collected through the 
harbor maintenance tax, directing Congress this fiscal year to spend 69 
percent of all of the funds collected from the user fee of that harbor 
maintenance. Now, that is just 69 percent this year with a 10-year 
glide path, and we are pleased that we are going to be able to use all 
of that funding for its intended purpose.
  While I was hoping to achieve full expenditure for the trust fund 
right away, I was willing to compromise on this glide path as a step in 
the right direction. Unfortunately, the current version of the Energy 
and Water bill falls short of the mark by just over $36 million.
  I would like thank the chairman for working with us on a bipartisan 
and, I should say, a bicoastal way with my coming from the west side of 
Michigan, the west coast of Michigan--and we have got the West Coast of 
the country with California--and for finding a bipartisan solution to 
hit the target and offset the cost by reducing spending elsewhere.
  We can hit this WRRDA target, and we believe that this will ensure 
that the 140 federally maintained commercial and recreational ports and 
harbors in the Great Lakes will be adequately maintained. These Federal 
harbor channels, like Pentwater, White Lake, Ludington, Muskegon, 
Holland, and Grand Haven, in my district, are the lifeblood of these 
very communities. Let's keep our promise to these communities and to 
the taxpayers who support this and allow their ports and harbors to be 
engines of economic growth and create jobs for American workers, 
farmers, and manufacturers.
  Again, thank you for working with us, Mr. Chairman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I do not 
oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. HAHN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague and good friend from Michigan in 
offering the Huizenga-Hahn amendment to the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill in order to utilize the harbor maintenance trust 
fund at the target set forth in the recently passed Water Resources 
Reform and Development Act. As my colleague said, this is a very 
important part of what we compromised on in the WRRDA bill.
  As a Representative of the Nation's busiest port complex in Los 
Angeles, along with Long Beach, and as the cofounder of the Ports 
Caucus, along with Ted Poe, I have fought so hard since the first day I 
came to Congress to increase the funding for our Nation's ports and to 
fully utilize this harbor maintenance trust fund to ensure that the 
money that is collected at our ports goes back to our ports.

                              {time}  2130

  After working for months with my colleagues, we reached a plan to 
finally put the harbor maintenance trust fund to work and fully utilize 
it by 2025, but this bill on the floor today fails to follow the law we 
passed just last year with an overwhelming vote of 404-4. This bill is 
$36 million behind our targets. For our Nation to remain globally 
competitive, we need to fund our port infrastructure.
  According to the Army Corps of Engineers, we need to fully fund our 
harbor maintenance tax for 5 years to fully dredge our ports. Ports are 
crucial across this country. Americans expect to go to Target and have 
tennis shoes or toys on its shelves; our farmers need efficient ports 
to export our agriculture products, and we cannot let America's 
infrastructure crumble. That is unacceptable.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment because it is critically important that we provide the 
necessary funding to ensure that our ports are fully dredged and 
properly maintained. The port in Wilmington, North Carolina, plays a 
vital role in helping our State's farmers and other businesses export 
their goods to foreign markets.
  In fact, a recent study showed that Wilmington's port contributes $14 
billion toward North Carolina's economy and supports, both directly and 
indirectly, nearly 77,000 jobs in our State. Without the proper 
funding, our ports will continue to deteriorate, and we risk putting 
our farmers and local industry--indeed, America--at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of 
the Huizenga and Hahn amendment. First, I would like to commend our 
Committee on Appropriations' efforts on the increased Army Corps of 
Engineers budget on the navigation safety and efficiency.
  The committee's work this year, despite very low numbers from the 
budget, has been difficult. I would like to thank the chair, ranking 
member, and staff for your hard work in working with us.
  In Texas, we have serious energy and water infrastructure needs. 
Representing a large part of the Port of

[[Page 5899]]

Houston, our need for operation and maintenance, as well as 
construction money, is significant. I greatly appreciate the 
committee's efforts to fund our needs by appropriating more than $32 
million for harbor maintenance, but this amount does not reflect the 
amount the Port of Houston needs or the amount of revenue it generates. 
The Port of Houston is the second largest port in the country by 
tonnage. The Port of Houston ranks number one in foreign tonnage.
  For dredging operations alone, the Port of Houston requires more than 
$50 million annually. Currently, the Port of Houston has a backlog of 
projects with the Corps of Engineers totaling almost $100 million.
  The Port of Houston generates significant tax revenue, both for the 
State and Federal Government. To meet the challenges and opportunities 
of the 21st century, the Port of Houston needs the funding allocated 
from the harbor maintenance trust fund.
  The Water Resources Reform and Development Act, WRRDA, requires that 
69 percent of harbor maintenance trust fund fees be spent on related 
activities. While the energy and water appropriators have done great 
things with limited resources, this bill shortchanges the Port of 
Houston and many other ports across the country.
  I support the Huizenga-Hahn amendment. The approximately $37 million 
shortfall significantly impacts the ability of the Port of Houston to 
receive larger ships, and it is our job to meet these demands.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Huizenga and Hahn amendment.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, at this time, I yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson for putting 
the money for the whole E and W bill.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment to ensure that 
Congress remains faithful to its obligation to fund important 
infrastructure projects. The harbor maintenance trust fund takes in 
enough revenue each year to provide the necessary maintenance of our 
harbor ports and channels.
  However, for years, expenditure of these funds has failed to keep up 
with the annual revenues. This amendment would simply keep us on 
schedule to hit the harbor maintenance target authorized by law in the 
Water Resource Reform and Development Act.
  This fund helps the Army Corps of Engineers provide dredging and 
maintenance for critical ports and channels throughout the country. In 
my district alone, these funds have been used to provide needed 
dredging at the Lake Providence Harbor, the Madison Parish Port, and 
ensure that the Ouachita and Black Rivers and the J. Bennett Johnston 
Waterway remain open to transportation and commerce.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will keep our 
Nation's critical arteries open for business.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I just really want to thank Chairman Simpson 
and Ranking Member Kaptur for allowing us to offer this amendment 
tonight. I really want to thank my colleague, Mr. Huizenga, for his 
incredible passion and his ability to move this forward in a way that 
was acceptable tonight.
  I think our ports and waterways across this country will thank the 
gentleman, but more importantly, I really believe that, when our ports 
and waterways are strong, this country will be strong, and I thank the 
gentleman very much for that.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Huizenga-Hahn amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I, too, want to thank my 
colleague, Ms. Hahn, for her work on the Huizenga-Hahn amendment. It 
has been a pleasure to work with her over a few years as we have gone 
to battle over this issue and for this issue; and ultimately, as she 
pointed out, having a port system that is functional, that is usable, 
is critical to the economy of our Nation.
  I, too, want to thank Chairman Simpson for his work and willingness 
to sit down and work through some issues with us. I pledge to the 
chairman--and I know Representative Hahn does as well--that, as we are 
going through this process, we will continue to refine how the harbor 
maintenance trust fund works, and I look forward to having this 
amendment be passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
and the gentlelady from California for working with us on this.
  What a lot of people may not understand is the challenge that 
presents us with the harbor maintenance trust fund and the way it is 
scored and the way it is counted for. I am one who believes that, if 
you have got a problem and you are going to tax people in order to 
address that problem, you ought to spend the money that you are 
receiving to address the problem.
  Instead, what happens is we spend--as I think the gentleman said, 69 
percent is the target--we will only spend 69 percent of what came in 
this year in the harbor maintenance trust fund on actually dredging the 
harbors and so forth. That seems rather silly. I think we ought to be 
able to spend it all if we have got a problem. If we are not going to 
spend it all, we shouldn't tax it.
  The problem is the way we score things and the budget around here is 
that we are given an overall cap in the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations. We have to have our total bill come in under that cap.
  If we spend more money in the harbor maintenance area, even though we 
have that money in a trust fund, then we have to decrease spending in 
everything else, such as the other energy portions of the bill or 
something like that, so increasing it even more decreases what we can 
spend in other needed areas. That is the challenge we face.
  What I would like to do is work with all of the supporters of the 
harbor maintenance trust fund to find a way that we can address this 
issue--it is really an issue created by us--but address this issue so 
that the funds that we collect in the harbor maintenance trust fund can 
actually go out and do what we expect them to do.
  I do appreciate the gentlelady from California and the gentleman from 
Michigan and the others that are interested. I should mention the other 
gentleman from Louisiana that is not here that has been an advocate for 
this for many years and many Congresses, Mr. Boustany. I do thank you 
for working on this and working with the committee to try to address 
this to see if we can get up to the target.
  The other thing is it was said that we didn't reach the target in 
this. While it depends on kind of how you look at it, there are, as you 
know, other purposes for which the harbor maintenance trust fund is 
spent, Saint Lawrence Seaway and also for one of the other accounts in 
transportation for border security and stuff.
  If you count those in the total spending of WRRDA, it probably does 
come close to reaching the target, as long as those committees 
appropriate what was requested. I don't know whether they will or not, 
but if they do.
  I think working in a bipartisan way, we have come up with the best we 
can do to address this. I know it is of high importance to all Members 
of Congress. I thank the gentlelady and the gentleman for working with 
the committee.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support and as a cosponsor of 
the Huizenga-Hahn Amendment to increase funding in the 2016 Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers Operations and Maintenance Account by $36,306,000. This 
modest increase, offset by reducing funding for the Department of 
Energy, Departmental Administration, by $36.7 million, will benefit 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund related projects.
  I have the good fortune to represent the city of Boston and its Port. 
Like many ports in this country, the port of Boston is vital to the 
local and regional economies, generating $2.4 billion in economic 
benefits annually and supporting 34,000 jobs.

[[Page 5900]]

  In fact, every one of our 50 states relies on seaports for imports 
and exports, totaling some $3.8 billion worth of goods moving through 
U.S. seaports each day, supporting more than 13 million jobs across the 
country.
  The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was created in 1986 to ensure that 
we could maintain and expand our ports and harbors in order to 
facilitate commerce and drive our economy. For too long Congress has 
engaged in budgetary shell games, starving the fund and hampering our 
ability to undertake dredging projects critical to maintaining this 
vital infrastructure.
  The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, which the 
House passed overwhelmingly last year by a vote of 412-4, moved to 
rectify this situation by setting incremental target expenditures from 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that reaches 80% in 2020.
  Mr. Chair, our amendment is simply in line with the amount 
overwhelmingly supported by my colleagues, increasing from $1.178 
billion to $1.25 billion the amount allocated from the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund, in order to support the critical needs of our 
nation's ports. The balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund at the 
beginning of fiscal 2016 will be approximately $8.9 billion. The money 
is there. With the re-opening of the Panama Canal slated for next year 
we need to re-double our efforts to make certain that U.S. ports are 
prepared for increased commercial opportunities and will remain 
competitive.
  All of our constituents benefit from the success of U.S. ports. It is 
time that we provide the resources to ensure that success. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Rice of South Carolina

  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 4, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,500,000)''.
       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,500,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from South 
Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, so many things we do here in Washington are 
nonsensical. Our tax system is not competitive; our immigration system 
is not competitive; our regulatory system is not competitive, and our 
infrastructure is deteriorating. Our ports are certainly a very, very 
critical part of our infrastructure.
  When we have a situation where it takes 15-plus years to get 
environmental permitting done for the Port Everglades, when we are on 
the fourth year of studying the Charleston port--one of the most 
efficient ports on the East Coast--and when it has been 10 years since 
we have had dredging funds for the small Port of Georgetown in my 
district, our infrastructure continues to deteriorate; the country 
becomes less competitive, and thousands more American jobs are lost.
  With limited funds, it is increasingly difficult for small harbors to 
compete with larger projects. Given this competition for scarce funds, 
very few small projects make the President's budget and receive 
funding.
  What my amendment proposes to do, Mr. Chairman, is to remove $4.5 
million from the Army Corps' regulatory budget, which the regulatory 
division of the Army Corps of Engineers continues to grow and 
promulgate more regulations that make our country even less 
competitive, such as the expansion of the Clean Water Act that are 
currently proposed.
  This would take money from that regulatory division and put it into 
the operating and maintenance division so that these moneys can be used 
to actually make our ports work again.
  The bottom line is our harbors are showing, and we need to increase 
money to maintenance accounts so that our harbors can compete. In my 
district, the Port of Georgetown has not received maintenance dredging 
in over a decade. This is a port that handled 1.7 million tons of cargo 
in the year 2000. The economy in the area is largely dependent on the 
port, and the port is getting more and more shallow each year.
  The State of South Carolina has pledged $18 million for port 
dredging. The ports authority in South Carolina has pledged $5 million, 
and even the Georgetown County voters have passed a referendum that 
will apply $6 million to dredge the harbor. Currently, Georgetown is 
waiting for the President or the Army Corps of Engineers to realize its 
importance and fund the Federal portion of this project.
  It is vitally important for the Corps' maintenance account to be 
sufficient, which is why my amendment transfers $4.5 million from 
regulatory activities to maintaining our harbors.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. It is my understanding the gentleman is going to 
withdraw the amendment after speaking on it.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. If the chairman is going to oppose my 
amendment, I will withdraw it out of respect for the chairman.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the desire and the 
need for sufficient funding for harbor maintenance. That was a debate 
we just had here on the floor, but this House adopted an amendment from 
my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) to meet the annual target set 
for the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. We hit the 
target we all agreed to.
  Additionally, while I certainly take issue with some of the 
regulatory changes this administration is pursuing, the Corps does need 
funding for processing permits in a timely manner.
  The underlying bill already eliminates funding for the changes to the 
waters of the United States. We do not want to slow down other 
necessary activities.
  For these reasons, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I 
certainly understand his concern and his desire with this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman 
Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work on this good piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           regulatory program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $424,000)''.
       Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $424,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, 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 offer an amendment which seeks to ensure 
the adequate resources for the Department of Energy's inspector 
general's office.
  As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I 
am a firm believer in oversight of the Federal Government. The more 
sunlight on Federal activity, the more honest and efficient it will be. 
I am also a strong proponent of our inspector general community.
  Since the Inspector General Act was passed into law, the IG community 
has saved taxpayers billions of dollars and

[[Page 5901]]

has uncovered countless examples of wrongdoing in the Federal 
Government.
  I just read a GAO investigation report yesterday that found that 
loans currently in the Department of Energy portfolio are expected to 
cost the taxpayers more than $2.2 billion. The report went on to state 
that $807 million of the $2.2 billion is a result of bad loans that 
have already defaulted. In fact, five major DOE loans have already 
defaulted from the agency's 2014 portfolio.
  The report also noted that the cost to the taxpayers from these 
flawed DOE loans could even exceed the $2.2 billion estimated figure. 
``The final credit subsidy cost of a given loan or loan guarantee will 
not be known until the life of the loan is complete . . . Both DOE loan 
programs can expose the government and taxpayers to substantial 
financial risk if borrowers default.''
  Further, this committee noted in the committee report accompanying 
this bill: ``The committee is also concerned that the Department is 
failing in its responsibility to ensure that DOE contracts with 
incurred costs valued at billions of dollars per year are audited in a 
timely manner.''
  Clearly, there is a lack of oversight and accountability within DOE 
that needs to change. It is the responsibility of the DOE inspector 
general to report to Congress on these issues so that we can rectify 
these problems and ensure taxpayers aren't exposed to another Solyndra.
  I applaud the committee for recommending resources above and beyond 
last year's enacted levels, but the recommended level is still beneath 
the President's budget request.
  Let's give the inspector general's office the resources it needs. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of 
this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

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


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

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

       Page 6, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $400,000)''.
       Page 22, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $22,661,000)''.
       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $34,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $227,000)''.
       Page 25, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $32,262,000)''.
       Page 25, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $18,000)''.
       Page 27, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,119,000)''.
       Page 35, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,632,000)''.
       Page 49, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 51, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $23,101,000)''.
       Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $128,920,000)''.

  Mr. SIMPSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment continues the effort to 
stop or, at least in this case, to freeze appropriations that are made 
for agencies whose legal authorizations lapsed many years and even 
decades ago.
  Ever since 1835, the rules of the House have forbidden spending any 
money for purposes unauthorized by current law; yet today, about one-
third of our discretionary spending is for unauthorized programs.
  Why is that? Well, it is because the rule against unauthorized 
spending cannot be enforced because it is always waived by the 
resolutions that bring these bills to the floor.
  The bill before us today contains $25 billion in unauthorized 
spending for programs that have not been reviewed by the authorizing 
committees since as far back as 1980, Jimmy Carter's last year in 
office.
  I am sure that some--even many--of these programs are valuable and 
worthy of taxpayer dollars, but surely others are not. The fact that 
they have not been authorized in as many as 35 years ought to warn us 
to at least be a little more careful in continuing to fund them.
  Rather than review our spending decisions and making tough choices 
about spending priorities, Congress simply rubberstamps these programs 
out of habit, year after year. It is no wonder we are so deeply in debt 
with so little to show for it.
  My amendment does not defund these unauthorized programs, as the 
House rules require. It simply freezes spending on them at last year's 
level.
  The cuts contained in this amendment total $129 million, or about 
thirty-six one-hundredths of 1 percent of the total spending in this 
bill.
  This House has a responsibility to examine these programs, 
reauthorize the ones that work, and modify or end the ones that don't. 
It has a responsibility, but it has no incentive, as long as we keep 
funding them and, worse, increasing the funding that these programs 
receive.
  In a sense, this is a token. It is a symbol. Reducing this bill by 
thirty-six one-hundredths of 1 percent will have no appreciable effect 
on the $35.5 million in this appropriation or the $3.8 trillion the 
Federal Government plans to spend this year, but I hope that it will 
send a subtle but clear message that the Members of this House insist 
that the Congress reassert its constitutional responsibility to 
authorize Federal spending and to enforce its own rules that prohibit 
spending blindly on unauthorized programs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I have to tell you, in all honesty, I understand what he 
is trying to do, and I agree with him in many ways; but, when he says 
we have to observe the rules of the House, the rules of the House also 
allow for the Rules Committee to write a rule that overrides the rules 
of the House. If it is approved by a majority, guess what, that is what 
happens. We are following the rules of the House, but he raises a point 
that is of concern--and should be.
  When I was chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, we tried to defund 
the Endangered Species Act and designations of critical habitat because 
the Endangered Species Act had not been reauthorized for something like 
23 or 26 years.
  We lost an amendment on the floor to put the money back into it, but 
we were trying to make a point--and I was supported by the chairman of 
the Resources Committee--but we were trying to make the point that the 
authorizing committees need to get busy and do their job. I fully 
believe that.
  That was 8 years ago. We still haven't done anything to reauthorize 
the Endangered Species Act, and the chairman at that time supported 
what we were trying to do. I haven't seen any reauthorization bills 
come up.
  Now, if you look at what is not authorized in the Federal Government 
right now--or where authorizations have expired--I think there is a 
reason for an expiration date. It is so that you go in and review the 
program and see if the need is still there, can we do it better, do we 
need to make changes, is there still a justification for the program.

[[Page 5902]]

  The problem is the authorizing committees have failed in many 
respects in that responsibility. If we were to simply defund everything 
where authorizations have expired--I think the Department of State 
authorization has expired; I am not sure we want to defund the 
Department of State; some people might want to--but there is an awful 
lot. I think, in most senior programs, the authorizations have expired, 
and you can go through the list.
  While the gentleman raises a very valid point and one that I would 
like to help work with him on trying to address, the Appropriations 
Committee is trying to do our job of oversight. That is why we have 
hearings.
  Is it the best place to do oversight of the need for the programs? We 
do oversight on how the money is spent and so forth, but the 
authorizing committees are the best place to look at the programs and 
see in their totality if they are still needed or not.
  While I sympathize--and I know that is not what the gentleman from 
California wants--while I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying 
to do--and even agree with what he is trying to do--I have to rise in 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I thank him for bringing a 
very important subject to this floor.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I, as well as the chairman, appreciate the gentleman 
coming to the floor and pointing out some of the inadequacies of 
process here, but I wanted to just state for the record that a couple 
of the items that the gentleman targets, I think, would do damage to 
the country.
  For example, the accounts that deal with cleaning up the cold war 
legacy, that means that communities across our country that sacrificed 
in the name of the country would have to wait even longer for a 
resolution to the contamination that exists.
  It is astounding how much there is from coast-to-coast. When you 
start looking, you almost want to close the book because there is so 
much, and I think that the communities that have been dealing with 
these remediation problems over the years would not appreciate the 
gentleman's amendment this evening.

                              {time}  2200

  In addition to that, I wanted to say something about ARPA-E, where we 
have our advanced energy research going on. You know, the United States 
is not energy secure. We are still too vulnerable here at home on many 
levels, and ARPA-E provides us with a real global advantage.
  I don't think we need to shave anything from ARPA-E because if I look 
at some of the competition that is coming at us from China, for 
example, it is even coming in very unfair ways, such as hacking into 
our intellectual property that any of our private companies hold.
  We view ARPA-E as essential to our future, really, with what we are 
doing within the global marketplace. So I think the gentleman is very 
well-intentioned in trying to have regular order. I wish that it all 
worked so perfectly, but I don't think that we should hurt communities 
across this country nor the long-term energy interests of the Nation, 
because I think that is what would be done if the gentleman's amendment 
were to pass.
  I just wanted to put that on the Record and rise in opposition, but I 
respect the gentleman for coming down here and for trying to perfect 
the way that we conduct the affairs of the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I appreciate the gentlelady's kind words.
  I would point out that this defunds nothing. All that it does is to 
freeze spending of those unauthorized programs at last year's level 
until the authorizing committees actually sit down and review them and 
revise them and reauthorize them. Nor is anything in the NDAA affected 
by this freeze.
  I appreciate my friend from Idaho's sympathy, but I would trade it in 
a moment for his support. And I would point out that this amendment, 
the whole point of this amendment is that authorizing committees have 
got to review, reauthorize, revise, or repeal these measures. They have 
got to do one of those things.
  But why should they, why would they want to go to all of the fuss and 
bother of reviewing these programs, taking on entrenched interests, 
asking hard questions, making people cranky in the process, when all 
they have to do, under our current practice, is sit there, do 
absolutely nothing, and the funding, just like the mighty Mississippi, 
just keeps rolling along.
  We cannot continue down this course responsibly. We have a 
responsibility to the American people to do that heavy lifting, to go 
through these programs with a fine-tooth comb, to make the revisions 
that are necessary according to our own experience and, in the most 
important mandate this Congress has been given, to stop wasting 
people's money.
  This measure is a very small step. To suggest that it is going to 
have dire consequences, cutting thirty-six one-hundredths of 1 percent 
of the total funds in this bill, is a measure of how out of control our 
thinking on spending has gotten.
  So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for this single token, that 
we take a stand and at least freeze the unauthorized spending.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for proposing 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
  The CHAIR. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. I would hate to get the idea, when he says stop wasting 
taxpayer money that, just because we are funding these programs that 
haven't been reauthorized, we are wasting taxpayer money. We actually 
look at these programs very deeply when we do the appropriations 
process.
  And, in fact, I wouldn't want to suggest to the American people that 
we never eliminate any program that authorizations have expired on or 
whose need we have deemed has run out. When I was chairman of the 
Committee on the Interior, I think we eliminated something like 59 
different programs that we no longer needed. So it is not that we sit 
here and just continue to fund things, but we do look at the programs, 
the need for the programs.
  I fully agree with the gentleman about the need to somehow change 
this so that the authorizing committees can do their--or will do 
their--authorizations work. But the Appropriations Committee holds 
probably more hearings than any other committee in this body and looks 
at these programs very deeply.
  There may be differences about what is necessary and what is 
appropriate for funding between Members of this body, but what we come 
out with is a bill that we think a majority of the Members of this body 
can support.
  So I look forward to working with the gentleman from California to 
try to address what is a real problem that he brings up, but I would 
hope my colleagues would oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. 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 California will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and 
     other natural disasters and support emergency operations, 
     repairs,

[[Page 5903]]

     and other activities in response to such disasters as 
     authorized by law, $34,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                                expenses

       For expenses necessary for the supervision and general 
     administration of the civil works program in the headquarters 
     of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division 
     Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the 
     Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for 
     Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and 
     Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of 
     Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works 
     program, $180,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2017, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation purposes and only 
     during the current fiscal year: Provided, That no part of any 
     other appropriation provided in this title shall be available 
     to fund the civil works activities of the Office of the Chief 
     of Engineers or the civil works executive direction and 
     management activities of the division offices: Provided 
     further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 
     appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general 
     administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other 
     activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other 
     natural disaster.

     office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works

       For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), 
     $4,750,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017: 
     Provided, That not more than 25 percent of such amount may be 
     obligated or expended until the Assistant Secretary submits 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress a work plan that allocates at least 95 percent of 
     the additional funding provided under each heading in this 
     title (as designated under such heading in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act) to 
     specific programs, projects, or activities.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in this title 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by 
     this Act;
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
       (5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or;
       (6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by 
     more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
       (b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or 
     activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, 
     section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996, or section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992.
       (c) The Corps of Engineers shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress detailing all the funds reprogrammed 
     between programs, projects, activities, or categories of 
     funding. The first quarterly report shall be submitted not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 102.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to award or modify any contract that commits 
     funds beyond the amounts appropriated for that program, 
     project, or activity that remain unobligated, except that 
     such amounts may include any funds that have been made 
     available through reprogramming pursuant to section 101.
       Sec. 103.  The Secretary of the Army may transfer to the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service 
     may accept and expend, up to $4,700,000 of funds provided in 
     this title under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' to 
     mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers 
     projects.
       Sec. 104.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of 
     Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or 
     enforce any change to the regulations in effect on October 1, 
     2012, pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill 
     material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.).


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer

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

       Page 10, beginning on line 10, strike section 104.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very simple. It strikes 
section 104 of this bill.
  Section 104 would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from updating 
regulations pertaining to the definitions of ``fill material'' or 
``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
  When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, and for nearly 35 
years after its passage, the law kept America's lakes, rivers, and 
streams safe from mining pollution, protecting our wildlife and our 
drinking water. That is no longer the case today.
  My amendment would remove this anti-Clean Water Act rider. Current 
and future administrations should have the flexibility to change the 
definitions of ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' 
should they wish to.
  When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, the 404 permit 
process was supposed to be used for certain construction projects like 
bridges and roads where raising the bottom elevation of a water body or 
converting an area into dry land was unavoidable.
  Under a 2002 rule change, the definition of ``fill material'' was 
broadened to include: ``rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction 
debris, wood chips, and overburden from mining or other excavation 
activities.'' The revised rule also removed regulatory language which 
previously excluded ``waste'' discharges from section 404 jurisdiction, 
a change that some argue allows the use of 404 permits to authorize 
certain discharges that harm the aquatic environment.
  The Clean Water Act, section 404(b)(1) guidelines are not well-suited 
for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous 
wastes such as mining refuse and similar materials into a water body or 
wetland.
  In sum, the net effect of the 2002 rule change was to alter the Corps 
permit process in ways that Congress never intended. It was not 
congressional intent to allow mining refuse and similar material, some 
of it hazardous, to qualify as ``fill material'' and thereby bypass a 
more thorough environmental review and meet Federal pollution 
standards. Downstream water users have every right to be concerned that 
the section 404 process fails to protect them from the discharge of 
hazardous substances.
  Lower Slate Lake in Alaska is the perfect example. A permit allows 
the discharge of toxic wastewater from a gold ore processing mill to go 
untreated directly into the lake, despite the fact that the discharge 
violates EPA's standards for the mining industry.
  Mining waste can contain toxic chemicals known to pose health risks 
to humans and aquatic animals, and continuing the practice of dumping 
this waste into our Nation's streams and rivers is dangerous and 
irresponsible. EPA estimates that 120 miles per year of headwater 
streams are buried with the chemical-laden discharge as a result of 
surface mining operations under the existing definitions of ``fill.''
  Equally important, a 2008 EPA study found evidence that mining 
activities can have severe impacts on downstream aquatic life and the 
biological conditions of a stream. That same study found that 9 out of 
every 10 streams downstream from surface mining operations were 
impaired based on assessments of aquatic life.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision is a preemptive strike against 
protecting our drinking water, and since there is no time limit on the 
provision, it would not only block the current Obama administration, 
but any future administration from considering changes.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to strike section 
104 from this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.

[[Page 5904]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. It seems like old 
times. You just changed your appearance.
  Mr. Moran and I, your colleague before you, he and I had this 
discussion many, many times on the Clean Water Act and waters of the 
United States and fill material and so forth, and it seems like you 
just look different than he used to.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The language in 
the bill is intended simply to maintain the status quo regarding what 
is ``fill material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
  The existing definition was put in place through a rulemaking 
initiated by the Clinton administration and finalized by the Bush 
administration. The rule aligned the definitions on the books of the 
Corps and the EPA, so that both agencies were working with the same 
definition.
  Changing the definition again, as some have proposed, could 
effectively kill mining operations across much of this country. For 
that reason, I support the underlying language in the bill. That is why 
we put it in the bill, and I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 105.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of 
     Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or 
     enforce any change to the regulations and guidance in effect 
     on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definition of waters 
     under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including the provisions of the 
     rules dated November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating 
     to such jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated 
     January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, relating to such 
     jurisdiction.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer

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

       Page 10, beginning on line 19, strike section 105.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply strike section 
105. As it stands, section 105 would prevent the Army Corps of 
Engineers from finalizing its proposed regulation clarifying the limits 
of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
  This language is not new. I understand we have seen it a number of 
times. The difference is that the conversation has since progressed, 
and almost everyone agrees that clarity is needed. Calls for the EPA to 
issue a rule even came from such notable organizations as the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the 
Western Business Roundtable, and the National Association of 
Manufacturers.
  Prohibiting EPA from finalizing the rule, as section 105 would 
direct, would perpetuate this confusion, and there are countless cases 
that reiterate this point.
  For example, the EPA acknowledged enforcement difficulties in a case 
in which storm water from construction sites carried oil, grass, 
grease, and other pollutants into tributaries to the San Pedro River, 
which is an internationally recognized river ecosystem supporting 
diverse wildlife but where the waters in question only flow for part of 
the year. The Agency stated that it ``had to discontinue all 
enforcement cases in this area because it was so time-consuming and 
costly to prove that the Clean Water Act protects these rivers.''
  We need to end the confusion and, through a public comment process 
and appropriate congressional oversight, allow the administration to 
move forward and complete a formal rulemaking.
  It also needs to be said that the opponents of the Clean Water rule 
have it wrong. The proposed rule respects agriculture and the law by 
maintaining all of the existing exemptions for agricultural discharges 
and water. It identifies specific types of water bodies to which it 
does not apply, areas like artificial lakes and ponds, and many types 
of drainage and irrigation ditches. It does not extend Federal 
protection to any waters not historically protected under the Clean 
Water Act, and it is fully consistent with the law and the decisions of 
the Supreme Court.
  The administration has a strong, commonsense plan to make clean water 
a priority by protecting the sources that feed the drinking water for 
more than 117 million Americans.
  If Congress blocks this proposal to protect clean water, 20 million 
acres of wetlands nationwide will continue to be at risk. Stopping this 
proposal will also impact the small businesses and communities that 
rely on clean water.
  American businesses need to know when the Federal Government has 
authority and when it doesn't, and without updated guidance, businesses 
will often not know when they need Army Corps of Engineers permits. 
This uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal liability and 
will certainly cost them extra money.

                              {time}  2215

  The clean water rule will largely restore but not expand historic 
coverage of the Clean Water Act at no direct cost to the public. EPA 
estimates that the clean water rule would provide up to $514 million 
annually in benefits to the public.
  Updating the rules and guidance is essential. We need to allow EPA 
and the Corps to do their job and clarify their rules and guidance. If 
they fail to do it in accordance with existing law, more lawsuits will 
ensue.
  Overall, these anti-Clean Water Act riders are part of an effort to 
return us to a time when we had no uniform national minimum clean water 
standard and States had conflicting policies or no policies at all. 
That was a time when rivers were so polluted, they caught fire, and 
responsible downstream States suffered the consequences of lax or weak 
upstream States' policies.
  Today we have cleaner, more drinkable waters precisely because of the 
Clean Water Act.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this clean water rider and support our 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. Last spring, the administration proposed a rule that would 
greatly expand the Federal jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act to 
include waters that were traditionally understood to be under State 
jurisdiction.
  Let me repeat that. Many people believed that if the waters were not 
regulated under the Clean Water Act, they were unregulated. Not true. 
They were regulated by the States. And that is where it should remain.
  Now, there became a question of, under the Clean Water Act, under 
``navigable waters,'' what the heck does that mean? It was very 
confusing. Does it mean navigable by a steamship, navigable by a boat, 
a canoe, an inner tube? And the Court said, You need to clarify this.
  Well, the EPA essentially said, Well, we can clarify that. We will 
just control all the waters and take them out of State control.
  I think that is a problem, and I can tell you that it is a real 
problem for States in the West, particularly.
  The administration's proposed rule is inconsistent with two separate 
Supreme Court decisions that clearly said the Corps of Engineers and 
the Environmental Protection Agency had gone too far in that Federal 
jurisdiction

[[Page 5905]]

under the Clean Water Act was not as broad as they had claimed.
  Deciding how water is used should be the responsibility of State and 
local officials who are familiar with the people and local issues.
  Under the rule provided by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, 
they are saying intermittent streams. Any streams that don't have water 
running in them, but maybe a month or two a year, now fall under their 
jurisdiction.
  And under the connectivity rule, which is what this is--you know, the 
hip bone is connected to the leg bone is connected to the knee bone 
sort of thing--under the connectivity rule, while they say that this is 
not their intent, there is no way that you cannot eventually say that 
we are going to control groundwater also--not just surface water but 
groundwater also--because it is connected to the surface water also.
  So while there may be a desire for clarity on the issue of Federal 
jurisdiction, providing clarity does not trump the need to stay within 
the limits of the law. The proposed rule would expand Federal 
jurisdiction far beyond what was ever intended by the Clean Water Act. 
The provision in the Energy and Water bill does not weaken the Clean 
Water Act. It stops the administration from expanding Federal 
jurisdiction.
  For those reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 106.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require a permit for the discharge of dredged or 
     fill material under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) for the activities identified in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 404(f)(1) of the Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344(f)(1)(A), (C)).
       Sec. 107.  As of the date of enactment of this Act and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Army shall not 
     promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an 
     individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled 
     or functional firearm, at a water resources development 
     project covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act), if--
       (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from 
     possessing the firearm; and
       (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the 
     law of the State in which the water resources development 
     project is located.
       Sec. 108.  No funds in this Act shall be used for an open 
     lake placement alternative of dredged material, after 
     evaluating the least costly, environmentally acceptable 
     manner for the disposal or management of dredged material 
     originating from Lake Erie or tributaries thereto, unless it 
     is approved under a State water quality certification 
     pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                central utah project completion account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, $9,874,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be deposited into the 
     Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use 
     by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission: Provided, That of the amount provided under this 
     heading, $1,300,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2017, for expenses necessary in carrying out related 
     responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided 
     further, That for fiscal year 2016, of the amount made 
     available to the Commission under this Act or any other Act, 
     the Commission may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for 
     administrative expenses.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

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

                      water and related resources

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, and others, $948,640,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $22,000 shall be available for transfer to 
     the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $5,899,000 shall be 
     available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin 
     Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary 
     may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided, 
     That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the 
     overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further, 
     That of the total appropriated, the amount for program 
     activities that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or 
     the Bureau of Reclamation special fee account established by 
     16 U.S.C. 6806 shall be derived from that Fund or account: 
     Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 
     are available until expended for the purposes for which the 
     funds were contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced 
     under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and 
     are available until expended for the same purposes as the 
     sums appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That 
     of the amounts provided herein, funds may be used for high-
     priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth 
     Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Ruiz

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

       Page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I thank Chairman Simpson and 
Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work and collaboration on this 
important bill.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Act, that provides additional, critical resources for 
the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake projects that address the 
historic and severe drought conditions across the West.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the worst droughts in modern history is ravaging 
our Nation's crops, choking our fragile economic recovery, and placing 
our water supply in unprecedented jeopardy.
  Last year, more than 60 percent of the contiguous United States 
suffered drought conditions, and the West continues to bear the brunt 
of this burden. In the Olympic Mountains of northwest Washington State, 
the snowpack contained just 7 percent of the average. In California, 
the drought is the worst to hit the State since record-keeping started 
in 1895. 2013 was the driest year on record, and 2014 was the hottest.
  The impacts of this severe drought are harsh and far-reaching, 
threatening public health, degrading the environment, increasing the 
risk of wildfires, and hampering a wide range of industries.
  In 2012, California's agriculture industry contributed over $45 
billion to the United States economy. Last year, because of the 
drought, hundreds of thousands of acres were left fallow because 
sufficient water was unavailable. According to a University of 
California study, this cost the State $2.2 billion in direct economic 
output and the devastating loss of 17,100 seasonal and part-time jobs.
  These effects will be felt by Americans across the country. This 
year, the price of fruits and vegetables is expected to rise 3 percent, 
in part due to the severe drought conditions in California.
  Furthermore, continuing to draw down groundwater supplies in 
California will have dangerous public health impacts. In rural 
communities, where residents rely on wells for drinking water, reduced 
groundwater levels result in higher concentrations of contaminants, 
including dangerous nitrates and arsenic.
  Stagnant pools have also created breeding grounds for mosquitoes. The 
California Department of Public Health announced in April that the 
State had a record-breaking number of deaths related to the mosquito-
borne West Nile virus in 2014.
  In addition to West Nile, the arid conditions could also increase the 
number of cases of valley fever, a potentially fatal disease caused by 
a fungus called Coccidioides that can grow in

[[Page 5906]]

the soil and becomes airborne if the soil dries out. While the majority 
of people exposed to the spores do not exhibit symptoms, people who 
start to develop the disease can have cough, fever, headache, and, in 
rare cases, it can lead to death.
  It is time for action at all levels of government to address the 
dangerous economic and public health impacts of ignoring this drought.
  Back home in the southern California desert, local water agencies are 
working to help residents, businesses, and municipalities convert their 
lawns and landscaping into water-efficient desert landscapes.
  At the Federal level, the Bureau of Reclamation is investing in 
public-private partnerships to help improve the delivery of water for 
agricultural users, which in turn allows them to invest in more water-
efficient irrigation techniques, such as drip irrigation.
  The Bureau can also help communities whose wells have run dry due to 
excessive groundwater pumping install relief wells that provide, in 
some cases, the only source of freshwater for an entire town. And 
through one of the most successful water conservation grant programs, 
the WaterSMART program, the Bureau has helped local water agencies, 
tribal governments, irrigation districts, and State agencies implement 
water conservation techniques that have conserved over 860,000 acre-
feet of water since 2009.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply shift 
funding away from taxpayer-subsidized fossil fuel research that 
benefits the wealthiest oil companies that can pay for the research 
themselves and redirect it toward critical Bureau of Reclamation 
activities to address the impacts of this devastating drought and help 
mitigate future droughts.
  We must put the American economy, our constituents, and the public's 
health above politics and Big Oil. I urge my colleagues to come 
together to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I understand the gentleman seeks to show support for additional 
funding for projects that are drought-related in California and other 
places, but we must be mindful of the balancing and competing 
priorities across this bill.
  The gentleman would take $20 million out of the fossil energy 
account. As I have said before, fossil fuels--such as coal, oil, 
natural gas--provide nearly 85 percent of the energy used by the 
Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the 
majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future.
  The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions to fossil 
energy and, instead, funds these programs at $605 million, $34 million 
above last year. With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil 
Energy will research how heat can more efficiently be converted into 
electricity in a cross-cutting effort with nuclear and solar energy 
programs, how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, and 
how coal can be used to produce electric power through fuel cells.
  This amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures that 
we use our Nation's abundant fossil fuel resources as well and as 
cleanly as possible. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge 
other Members to do so.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their 
leadership and hard work on this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan fashion and 
support my amendment to ensure the Bureau dedicates essential resources 
towards projects that will help keep American-made food on the table 
and prevent a dangerous rise in food prices across the country, again, 
just taking money from taxpayer-subsidized research that they can 
afford on their own and putting it to combating our drought.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ruiz).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. 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 California will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tipton

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

       Page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member 
Kaptur for their collaborative effort in bringing together this bill.
  I appreciate very much Chairman Simpson's support of my floor 
amendment last year, reprogramming funds within the Bureau of 
Reclamation's water conservancy and delivery fund to advance and 
complete ongoing work that would provide efficient delivery of clean 
drinking water from an existing multipurpose reclamation project, as 
authorized by Congress in 1962.
  Mr. Chairman, water is the lifeblood of the Western United States and 
is absolutely critical to the vitality of our communities and local 
economies.
  Today I am offering a simple amendment that will bolster the Bureau 
of Reclamation's water and related resources account by $2 million, 
allowing the Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with ongoing water supply 
delivery projects at a more efficient pace to reach our shared goals in 
meeting increased water demands by developing and maximizing clean 
water supplies.
  In Colorado, as is the case throughout the West, we have similar 
needs to move forward with engineering design work on the authorized 
features of existing reclamation projects. These projects improve water 
supply quality, address water shortage issues, improve conservation 
measures, and stabilize water supplies.

                              {time}  2230

  In the Western United States, water is an economic driver. In order 
to attract more economic growth, either in business or agriculture, 
every industry in the West is dependent upon an ample and safe water 
supply.
  This amendment will provide Bureau of Reclamation increased funding 
to continue with these types of projects while simultaneously improving 
public health and protecting the environment. These projects are 
critically important during drought years so that water is 
appropriately allocated for both municipal and agricultural uses.
  The Bureau's budget has been previously used for the California 
Central Valley Project, the Washington State Yakima River Basin Water 
Enhancement Project, the Arkansas Valley Conduit in Colorado, and the 
Lewiston Orchards Project in the chairman's home State of Idaho.
  It is our hope that this bill gives the Bureau of Reclamation the 
resources it needs to advance vital projects that resolve water 
shortage issues in the West while enhancing regional development and 
promoting job growth.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Buck), the coauthor of this amendment and my colleague.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment from my 
colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. Chairman, we have a history of borrowing for the future in this 
country. We have borrowed for fighting wars, for building roads, and 
for building space programs. Now, we are borrowing from the future, as 
opposed to

[[Page 5907]]

for the future. We have $18 trillion of debt, and we will add to that 
debt this year.
  This project was authorized in 1962, and it is required more recently 
by the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act. We have 40 
communities in southeast Colorado who are in violation of the Clean 
Water Act because of naturally occurring elements. This amendment 
offers those communities a future.
  If we have to incur debt, let it be an investment for our children's 
future.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Chairman 
Simpson.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlemen from Colorado, both of them, for 
offering this amendment and bringing this issue before the committee. 
We have no objection with the amendment and would be happy to accept 
it.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $49,528,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of 
     Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount 
     of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water 
     for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to 
     in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.

                    california bay-delta restoration

                     (including transfers of funds)

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

                       policy and administration

       For expenses necessary for policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2017, 
     $59,500,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That 
     not more than 25 percent of such amount may be obligated or 
     expended until Reclamation complies with congressional and 
     statutory direction related to Technical Memorandum 8140-CC-
     2004-1 (``Corrosion Considerations for Buried Metallic Water 
     Pipe'') and the associated pipeline reliability study: 
     Provided further, That no part of any other appropriation in 
     this Act shall be available for activities or functions 
     budgeted as policy and administration expenses.

                        administrative provision

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in this title 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
       (4) restarts or resumes any program, project or activity 
     for which funds are not provided in this Act, unless prior 
     approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress;
       (5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits--
       (A) 15 percent for any program, project or activity for 
     which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year; or
       (B) $300,000 for any program, project or activity for which 
     less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year;
       (6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities 
     Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the 
     Resources Management and Development category to any program, 
     project, or activity in the other category; or
       (7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal 
     obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than 
     $5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor 
     claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated 
     rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
       (b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of 
     funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and 
     Rehabilitation category.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer'' 
     means any movement of funds into or out of a program, 
     project, or activity.
       (d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress detailing all the funds reprogrammed 
     between programs, projects, activities, or categories of 
     funding. The first quarterly report shall be submitted not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to determine the final 
     point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis 
     Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the 
     water quality standards of the State of California as 
     approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis 
     drainage waters.
       (b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program 
     and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
     shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment 
     Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department 
     of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future 
     obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or 
     providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the 
     San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit 
     beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal 
     reclamation law.
       Sec. 203.  The Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
     the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall--
       (1) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses 
     (i)(I) and (ii)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 
     108-361 (118 Stat. 1684) and submit such studies to the 
     appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate not later than December 31, 2015;
       (2) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses 
     (i)(II) and (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 
     108-361 and submit such studies to the appropriate committees 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 
     November 30, 2016;
       (3) complete the feasibility study described in section 
     103(f)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 (118 Stat. 1694) and 
     submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than December 31, 
     2017; and
       (4) provide a progress report on the status of the 
     feasibility studies referred to in paragraphs (1) through (3) 
     to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and each 180 days thereafter until 
     December 31, 2017, as applicable. The report shall include 
     timelines for study completion, draft environmental impact 
     statements, final environmental impact statements, and 
     Records of Decision.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,657,774,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of such 
     amount, $150,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2017, for program direction.


                   amendment offered by mr. griffith

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

       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``reduced 
     by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.


[[Page 5908]]


  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, over the past 6 years, the policy of the 
current administration has been to wage a war on coal that has crippled 
the coal industry and left areas like Virginia's Ninth District 
economically devastated, and I believe it has put our access to 
reliable, affordable electricity in jeopardy.
  The onslaught of harmful, burdensome, and unreasonable regulations on 
coal-fired power plants is continuing in the President's Clean Power 
Plan. States must come up with a plan for CO2 in 13 months 
after the final rule is released, which is supposed to be that summer. 
That State plan is then to begin by 2020 and completed by 2030.
  There are a number of clean coal technologies currently in 
development, but according to the testimony from the Department of 
Energy, these new technologies are not likely to be ready for prime 
time until 2025. That is 9 years after the States have to come up with 
a plan and 5 years after the States have to begin implementing that 
plan and halfway through the time to come into compliance.
  This is not right. If we are to avoid rolling brownouts, coal will 
have to continued to be used; but, if we don't take action, it will be 
illegal to use coal.
  While I fight and will continue to fight more for more reasonable 
regulations, we must take action to ensure that we can still use coal, 
should the next administration also be unreasonable and anticoal.
  Mr. Chairman, to bend the curve of development and bring the new coal 
technologies to market, we must spend some money. My amendment will 
simply add $50 million for fossil energy research and development from 
energy efficiency and renewable energy for the purpose of aiding the 
development of these new clean coal technologies so we can continue to 
have reliable, affordable energy.
  The very least we can do is to make sure that coal-fired power plants 
have access to these new technologies in a timely fashion so that they 
can meet these extremely burdensome regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the underlying bill provides a 6 
percent increase in fossil fuel energy research. However, when 
districts like mine are seeing mine after mine shut down and power 
plants shut down because of numerous regulations on coal, it is clear 
that more needs to be done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from 
Virginia's amendment. I wanted to point out--perhaps he doesn't have 
the full numbers--but the figure that we have, we had a request from 
the administration of $560 million, and we actually increased the 
administration's request by $45 million to a level of $605 million for 
fossil energy research, which is more than we spent in this fiscal year 
of 2015. We are spending $571 million this year, so I would say that 
the fossil energy accounts have been rather well provided for.
  I also want to say to the gentleman that you are taking the funds 
from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, and that 
account is not above last year. It is $266 million below last year. 
What is in the account, what remains there, is focused on American 
manufacturing--which is important in Virginia--and vehicle technology, 
which are really not partisan interests.
  My own view is that, if you were to take the amount of funds that you 
are proposing out of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
account, you would decimate these programs and further erode 
manufacturing which has taken such big hits.
  Let me also mention that since 2003, our country has spent $2.3 
trillion importing foreign petroleum. This shifts vast amounts of 
wealth abroad and squelches thousands upon thousands of jobs in our 
country in the energy sector.
  I agree with the gentleman that a diverse energy portfolio is 
necessary to eliminate our reliance on imported energy, and we need an 
``all of the above'' strategy. Our bill provides that in terms of not 
just fossil energy, but renewable energies. We should be leading 
investment in these technologies across the board and expanding jobs in 
our country.
  Though I appreciate the gentleman's interest--and I know Virginia has 
coal deposits, so does Ohio--but I really feel that the bill that we 
have worked out on a bipartisan basis provides very, very well for 
fossil energy, certainly better than the Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy accounts fared.
  I would oppose the amendment, and I would ask our colleagues to join 
us in doing the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson), the chairman.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  My colleague's amendment would increase funding for the Fossil Energy 
research and development program and decrease the EERE account by the 
same amount as an offset.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's concern to protect the 
fossil fuel industry against overreach by this administration's Clean 
Power Plan proposal.
  This amendment would advance research and development in allowing 
robust utilization of our abundant natural resources in a safe and 
efficient way. Therefore, I support the amendment and urge Members to 
do the same.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Using the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
have to say that I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I 
appreciate the chairman's support.
  The bottom line is that we are losing thousands of jobs in the 
central Appalachian region, and according to the Bristol Herald Courier 
in a recent article, 1,000 jobs have been lost in the last year alone 
in the coal fields. That is one concern.
  We are shutting down this month several coal-powered power plants in 
my district, and we are going to have serious problems if we don't do 
something. If we are going to continue down this path, we have to help 
the industry. We have to help make sure that we are burning the coal in 
a clean manner, and this is the way to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. 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 Virginia will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Castor

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

       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $266,161,000)''.
       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $355,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman from 
Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $266 million, to 
simply restore it to last year's levels, with an offset from the fossil 
energy account.
  My amendment will boost energy efficiency and renewable energy 
initiatives across America that have a proven return on investment for 
taxpayers. This amendment is paid for by reducing--but not by 
eliminating--accounts that do not have the same return on investment 
for taxpayers.

[[Page 5909]]

  Unless we adopt this amendment, America's commitment to energy 
efficiency and renewable energy will be slashed by $266 million below 
the 2015 enacted level and over $1 billion below the budget request.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could meet the budget request this 
year, but that doesn't appear possible, but we should at least restore 
the money back to last year's levels, which is still a very modest 
investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy for America.
  Investments in energy efficiency create jobs and help make our 
businesses more competitive compared to businesses all across the 
globe. In addition, energy efficiency reduces costs for consumers. 
Wouldn't that be revolutionary, that we put money back into the pockets 
of our neighbors back home?
  The amount proposed for energy efficiency and renewable energy in the 
Republican bill is so low that America will have to reduce the number 
of research, development, and demonstration projects with industry, 
with our universities, and in our national labs. America should be a 
leader in innovation and technological advancement, but instead, the 
Republican bill says America should take a back seat.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, America should take a back seat to no one. We are 
in the midst of a technological revolution when it comes to energy. 
Look at what is happening across our great country. We have an 
incredibly diverse energy portfolio and a growing clean energy and 
efficiency sector. This is especially important as we tackle the 
challenges of the changing climate.
  Yet the Republican bill reduces investment in solar energy technology 
R&D within the Solar Energy Technologies Office by $81 million, or 35 
percent, from last year. That means the Department of Energy's exciting 
SunShot Initiative goal of enabling cost-competitive solar electricity 
without subsidies by 2020 will be delayed for years.
  That is extremely detrimental to the U.S. solar industry and the jobs 
it creates that currently employ over 174,000 Americans. It will send 
an unfortunate signal to the Chinese and foreign competitors that we 
are ceding this clean energy industry to them.
  The Republican bill also would result in a significant reduction in 
core solar R&D and the national labs, including the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories, necessitating 
reductions in force.
  The Republican bill will also eliminate support for solar industry 
job training for students and military veterans at more than 400 
community colleges across 49 States. This network has been a critical 
source of trained employees in an industry that is growing and is 
expected to grow even more with over 200,000 jobs by the end of 2015.
  Finally, the recently piloted Solar Ready Vets program would be at 
risk, and the planned expansion from 3 to 10 military bases would be 
affected and canceled. Veterans currently make up 10 percent of the 
solar industry.

                              {time}  2245

  If we do not unleash American ingenuity now, our neighbors back home 
will face increased costs of the changing climate, such as increases in 
property insurance, increases in flood insurance, all of this from 
extreme weather events, increased property taxes from having to protect 
drinking water supplies, and storm water infrastructure. I would say 
instead, let's invest in America.
  My amendment shifts a little bit, not all, from older technologies 
into cutting-edge energy efficiency and clean energy that are so vital 
to America's future.
  I appreciate Ranking Member Kaptur's vision. She understands that 
this is our future. We are talking about American jobs in American 
manufacturing. I appreciate her work. And I appreciate Chairman 
Simpson's work on the appropriations bill.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Castor amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida says we 
should invest. We are investing. This amendment would increase funding 
for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $266 million, restoring 
it to last year's level, by using the fossil energy account as an 
offset.
  This year, funding for EERE is $1.66 billion, $266 million below last 
year, and $1.1 billion below the budget request. The recommendation 
strategically focuses funding on three main priorities: helping 
American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace, supporting 
weatherization assistance programs, and supporting basic research into 
renewable energy sources. These are all areas with broad bipartisan 
support.
  The House recommendation for this year was the result of a focused 
effort to ensure taxpayer funds are spent on the most advanced research 
projects within these priorities. Increasing funding for EERE by 
diverting funds from research into fossil energy strikes the wrong 
balance when considering the Nation's electricity needs.
  Fossil fuel, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide the vast 
majority of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and 
will continue to provide our energy needs for the foreseeable future. 
For example, fossil fuels produce nearly 11 times more electricity than 
renewable energy fuel sources.
  I am not against renewable energy. I think they are an important part 
of the mix. They are cute, but they don't provide the majority of 
energy that is needed in this country.
  This amendment would decimate funding for a program that ensures we 
use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as 
possible. Therefore, I must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the burgeoning 
jobs being created in American manufacturing and energy efficiency and 
renewable energy are more than just cute. They are the jobs of the 
future in America, a clean energy future.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Castor amendment: vote for America, 
vote for American jobs, and vote for the future.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

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

       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,000,000) (increased by $4,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The purpose of this amendment is to increase the funding for the 
U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation program from the current $2 million to 
$4 million. This critical program allows companies across the U.S. to 
develop cutting-edge technologies with new partners in Israel in order 
to advance America's energy goals.
  Furthermore, the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperative Agreement facilitates 
greater cooperation and sharing of knowledge between American and 
Israeli universities on alternative energy. Collaboration between the 
American and Israeli private sector and academia will significantly 
enhance U.S. efforts to develop alternative technologies and increase 
energy efficiency to the benefit of our national security, our economy, 
and the environment.
  Let me be clear, this is not an aid program, but instead a 
cooperative agreement designed to connect the U.S.

[[Page 5910]]

and Israeli private sectors in the development of innovative 
technologies to strengthen our energy security and independence. 
Reauthorized in 2014 through 2024, the cooperative energy program 
mandate was expanded to cover collaborative research and development 
into renewable technologies, natural gas, and water--key areas of 
interest for the United States.
  The program is also designed to leverage matching contributions from 
both the Israeli and American private sectors; thus, for every dollar 
Congress appropriates, $3 are invested, contributing to our economy in 
addition to our energy security. The program has already leveraged over 
$27 million in private sector investment. This is an excellent way to 
leverage a modest investment into critical energy innovation to the 
benefit of both countries.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment to make a 
greater investment in America's and Israel's energy future and to 
support an important bilateral energy cooperation agreement with one of 
our Nation's closest allies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

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

       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,500,000)''.
       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $34,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which I offer along 
with Representatives Perlmutter, Welch, Lieu, Tonko, Matsui, and 
Connolly, which would cut the increase provided to the fossil Energy 
Research and Development account back to its fiscal year 2015 level and 
put that money toward the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, also 
known as EERE, account.
  My amendment presents a question for the Congress this evening: Are 
we going to invest in the future of energy or are we going to continue 
to look backwards?
  We are certainly an all-of-the-above country when it comes to where 
we get our energy; however, that does not mean we have to be an all-of-
the-above country when it comes to how we spend our Federal research 
dollars.
  For decades, we have relied on fossil fuels, fuels that dirty our 
environment, that are fundamentally changing our environment, that keep 
us dependent on foreign sources of energy and are a finite resource. 
Reliance like this is simply not sustainable over the long-term.
  Energy that is clean and renewable is where our future lies. To put 
this in perspective, this budget proposes to cut the investment in 
renewable energy by $266 million from last year, and increase 
investments in fossil fuel by $34 million.
  My colleagues on the other side often ask: Why can't we run 
government like a business? This would be similar to a business cutting 
its cell phone, iPhone, laptop, iPad budget and increasing its pager 
and landline budget. It is time that we start running government like a 
business and making investments in renewable energy because they will 
pay off for our future and also for health and jobs that will be 
created around them.
  Young people understand this choice well. I have the opportunity to 
lead a group in the Congress called Future Forum, and we have gone 
across the country from New York to Boston to San Francisco talking to 
young people about what issues matter to them. And across the country 
the issue is always the same: Why can't this Congress be more forward 
looking as to where we get our energy?
  Millennials know that they are a generation who will be living with 
the consequences of the energy choices we make here today. It is their 
environment that will be damaged. It is their climate that will be 
altered, and their energy choices that will be limited if we fail to 
invest in renewable clean sources of energy now.
  I know the budget is tight and we have to make difficult choices 
about how to allocate scarce resources, and I understand and appreciate 
that some of the money supported by the Fossil Energy research and 
development account are seeking to improve how we use fossil fuels.
  But how can we take limited resources to increase spending in any way 
to support fossil fuels and encourage their use over fiscal year 2016 
by $34 million while cutting renewable energy by $266 million? This 
makes no sense.
  Look at what other countries are doing. Germany right now receives 30 
percent, 30 percent of its energy from renewable sources. Can we not do 
better than Germany? The only way we can is if we invest in the future. 
We shouldn't be increasing funding to continue to use energy sources of 
the past.
  I urge all Members to support my amendment, to undo this increase and 
redirect that money towards supporting the energy of the future--
renewable energy.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is the same debate we used on the other 
amendment, so I could just say repeat the same debate. The fact is we 
are investing in what we use: 85 percent of electricity produced in 
this country is produced by fossil energies. We invest in that to try 
to make it more clean. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Why would we 
walk away from that? We can do it cleaner. We can do it more 
efficiently, and that is what we are investing in.
  We are still investing in renewable energies. It is not that we are 
just ignoring those other things. In fact, we are investing $1.66 
billion in those things. Fossil energy that we use much more than we do 
renewable energies, only investing $605 million in it.
  So our priorities, I believe, in this bill are in the right place. 
And while I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I think it 
would unbalance the bill, and I would urge the rejection of his 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Swalwell).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. 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 California will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry

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

       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $22,300,000)''.
       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $22,300,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking Chairman Simpson 
for working on the bill and being willing to listen to this issue.
  This amendment seeks to highlight the fact that the Water Power 
Program

[[Page 5911]]

is vitally important to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
  This bill, the underlying bill, cuts hydropower by over $22 million. 
What the amendment I am offering does is restores that funding and 
offsets it with Department of Energy administrative costs.
  Hydropower is the Nation's most available, reliable, affordable, and 
sustainable energy source. Requiring only the power of moving water--
rivers, streams, and ocean waves and tides--hydropower is domestic and 
renewable.
  Hydropower is available in every region of the country. A range of 
technologies exist or are under development to tap the power of waves, 
tides, and river flows. Thousands of megawatts of potential are 
available from ocean energy projects from New England to the west coast 
and Alaska, and from in-river hydrokinetic projects proposed along the 
Mississippi River and others. 2,200 hydropower plants provide America's 
most abundant source of clean, renewable electricity.
  The United States produces more electricity from hydropower than from 
any other renewable electricity source. It accounted for 56 percent of 
renewable generation in 2012 and 7 percent of the Nation's overall 
electricity generation.
  New technology employed at existing hydro sites represents an 
opportunity for new sources of power. By installing more efficient 
turbines and enhancing performance, existing hydropower infrastructure 
can generate even more power, sustainably. Harnessing more of this 
energy will create a truly renewable and green energy source.
  There are advantages over wind and solar. Hydro has a predictable 
year-round output, while solar and wind output can be variable in some 
areas and necessitates the use of large battery banks and/or alternate 
power sources.

                              {time}  2300

  Even routine, minor maintenance on a windmill can be difficult on the 
top of a wind tower, while hydropower provides relatively low 
maintenance. Hydropower facilities are quiet and often can be made 
unobtrusive, while many people report that considerable noise is 
generated by wind power.
  Hydropower also faces a comprehensive regulatory approval process. It 
involves too many participants, including FERC, the Federal and State 
resource agencies, local governments, tribes, NGOs, and the public. 
Currently, there are 60,000 megawatts of preliminary permits and 
projects awaiting final approval or that are pending before the 
Commission in 45 States.
  Pennsylvania, where I come from, is in the top 10 for hydropower 
potential, and, according to the Department of Energy, of the 80,000 
total dams in the United States, 600 have the immediate capability to 
produce energy.
  This amendment seeks to highlight the lost and underutilized capacity 
of abundant, economical, and clean energy right here within our 
communities while we irresponsibly spend hard-earned tax dollars on 
less viable options.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment from 
consideration while simultaneously asking for favorable consideration 
on the bipartisan hydro amendment to be offered very shortly.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Bonamici

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

       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $9,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $9,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman from 
Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of the power and 
potential of water and in support of a bipartisan amendment that I am 
pleased to offer with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman 
Perry, and with my colleague from Maine, Congresswoman Pingree.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment would increase funding to the Department 
of Energy's Water Power Program by just $9 million, which is a small 
price tag that will yield a huge return on investment. This increase is 
offset by an equal amount by the departmental administration account. 
The modest increase that we are proposing will support hydropower and 
also the development of innovative hydropower technologies, along with 
marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies.
  The development of these new technologies can offer the United States 
a chance to lead the world in an emerging area of abundant renewable 
energy. Marine and hydrokinetic energy--in particular, energy from 
waves, currents, and tides, which, unlike the Sun and wind, do not 
stop--is an exciting frontier in the renewable energy sector.
  Currently, Oregon State University, the University of Washington, and 
the University of Alaska Fairbanks are using Federal funding from the 
Water Power Program to support the testing and research activities of 
the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, a center that 
will provide visionary entrepreneurs a domestic location to test wave 
energy devices, along with other technology, rather than traveling to 
Scotland to use the European test center. Without continued Federal 
investment, Europe will remain the leader.
  When fully developed, wave and tidal energy systems could generate a 
significant amount of total energy used in the United States. As 
Congress promotes technologies that can help lower our constituents' 
energy bills, we must embrace new and innovative solutions, like marine 
and hydrokinetic renewable energy. With this modest increase, the Water 
Power Program can do that while continuing to support a Federal 
investment in conventional hydropower technology.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the bipartisan amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I am not opposed 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I see the amendment as a reasonable, 
bipartisan approach and agreement which has seen favorable 
consideration in this House in the past.
  As I said just previously, hydropower is the Nation's most available, 
reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy source. It seems to me, 
while we spend a lot of money, time, and energy on unproven resources, 
this is one that has stood the test of time. As a matter of fact, it is 
one of the beginning sources of energy not only in the United States 
but around the globe, and if we should be spending any of our 
resources, this is one that we know. This is one that is in every 
community. This is one that is clean. This is one that doesn't create 
too much noise for people, and it doesn't hurt fish. All it does is 
produce power without doing anything else, so it is hard to argue why 
we wouldn't be in support of this amendment and this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his 
cosponsorship of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this is a modest increase in the Water Power 
Program, which supports hydropower technology as well as new and 
innovative solutions, like hydrokinetic renewable energy.
  I urge the support of this bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment.

[[Page 5912]]

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

       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for 
the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $2 million for 
the SuperTruck II program.
  The SuperTruck program was initiated by the Department of Energy to 
improve freight and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency. The Appropriations 
Committee acknowledged the success of the SuperTruck I in their 
committee report, but, unfortunately, it recommended only $8 million of 
the requested $40 million for the SuperTruck II program to further 
improve the efficiency of these vehicles. SuperTruck II will continue 
dramatic improvements in the freight efficiency of heavy-duty Class 8 
long-haul and regional-haul vehicles through system level improvements. 
These improvements include hybridization, more efficient idling, and 
high efficiency HVAC technologies.
  By increasing the funding for the SuperTruck program by just $2 
million, it will allow the Department of Energy to better achieve their 
freight efficiency goals. It will be good for the environment. It will 
be good for the trucking community. It will be good for America. This 
amendment is offset via a decrease in the departmental administration 
account.
  I would like to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for 
their hard work on the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

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

       Page 21, Line 5
       In the ``Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy'' account, 
     after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by 
     $1,657,774,000)''.
       Page 21, Line 6
       In the ``Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy'' account, 
     after the dollar amount relating to program direction, insert 
     ``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 57, Line 11
       In the spending reduction account, after the dollar amount, 
     insert ``(increased by $1,657,774,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to strike all funding of 
the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
program.
  This program, under the Department of Energy, allows the government 
to invest millions--indeed, over $1 billion--of taxpayer money in high-
risk research and development schemes for green energy projects. The 
government should not be in the business of subsidizing the research 
and development initiatives of individual companies. Let's be clear. 
Competition and innovation have been key aspects of the private 
sector's success in our country from day one, and the government should 
not take the role of a private investor.
  Every business has a bottom line, which is itself a direct incentive 
for developing methods for becoming more energy efficient and 
innovative. By subsidizing this small sector of the energy economy, we 
are essentially allowing the Department of Energy to spend millions of 
taxpayer dollars on unconventional energy initiatives and projects that 
place taxpayer dollars at risk and that are not likely to produce a 
return on investment.
  We as a Congress have continuously stated the need for an all-of-the-
above energy strategy, but continued investment into the EERE program 
focuses on the small portion of a largely unproductive portion of the 
energy sector at the expense of more traditional energy sources, such 
as fossil fuels and nuclear, which have a proven, reliable track 
record.
  I do want to applaud Chairman Simpson and the entire committee for 
their work on this bill. I know they face many tough choices when it 
comes to preparing these bills, and I do appreciate their hard work.
  Ultimately, the American people are sick and tired of a Federal 
Government that continues to recklessly spend taxpayer dollars. They 
want to see Congress make the tough choices and rein in wasteful 
spending. I believe that eliminating funding for the EERE program would 
be a step in the right direction. It would be a small step toward 
restoring fiscal sanity in Washington. At a time when many Americans 
and small businesses continue to struggle, we must focus on reasonable 
energy strategies that allow for the most affordable and reliable 
energy resources for consumers and businesses alike.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we have now seen amendments to put more 
money into the EERE and amendments to take money out of the EERE and 
now an amendment to eliminate the EERE.
  I have to rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill supports an 
all-of-the-above approach to utilize our abundant natural resources and 
advance energy in new technologies to increase our energy security. A 
part of that approach includes strategic investments in the EERE 
accounts.
  I agree that there are many activities in this program that could use 
a closer and more critical look. That is why this bill focuses funding 
on basic technological research and manufacturing advancements in this 
account. The bill reduces the EERE by $266 million over last year's 
level, but this amendment, I believe, would go too far. I must support 
the strategic balance of this bill. Therefore, I must oppose my 
colleague's amendment, and I urge others to do the same.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I appreciate the chairman's yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I first want to invite the gentleman from Alabama to Ohio to see part 
of the new energy sector in our country. It is absolutely incredible, 
and it does involve high-level research to produce new energy 
technologies. I support nuclear, and I support fossil-based research, 
but I also support coal and tidal energy and wind and biofuels and 
geothermal--all of them--because we need them.
  New investment in clean energy in our country in 2013 totaled $36.7 
billion. The leading company in solar in our country and, frankly, 
globally is a U.S.-born company--born in Ohio--called First Solar. You 
mentioned nonproductivity. Their stock is sold on Wall Street. They 
benefited early on in that company's life by photovoltaic research 
beginning back in the 1970s and 1980s at the U.S. Department of Energy. 
It is really incredible to see the future being born, and I am hoping 
Alabama can take advantage of that kind of technology.
  What concerns me, and one of the reasons I am on my feet at this 
point, is that they have competition from China. The first and second 
companies in the world that are being subsidized by the Chinese 
Government are in tough competition with the U.S.-born company, and we 
can't ignore the fact that global venture capital and private equity in 
new investment in clean energy increased from $1.4 billion in 2004 to 
$4.4 billion in 2013. The question is: Where is that going to be 
invested--in our country or someplace else?

                              {time}  2315

  So I would just say that we have made tremendous progress in an all-
of-

[[Page 5913]]

the-above strategy. Renewable sources now account for 23 percent of all 
electricity generation globally. That is amazing progress. We are 
learning how to work in conjunction with the Earth.
  Who would ever have guessed that ethanol would now consume 10 percent 
of what you put in your tank? People said you can't even get to 1 
percent. Now they are looking to 15 percent. It is unbelievable what is 
happening in these fields.
  I appreciate the gentleman wanting to be responsible. I think we are 
being responsible in providing an all-of-the-above bill, including new 
energy technologies that will help our country in future generations so 
we no longer have to be dependent on imported energy, which I view as 
our chief strategic vulnerability.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. I rejoice with the gentlewoman from Ohio that there is a 
company there that is making money. We should always be about American 
companies making money. But if they are making money, they don't need a 
subsidy from the government. I would like you to come to Alabama, where 
coal miners are losing their jobs because we have a war on coal in this 
country.
  We give lip service to all-of-the-above, and then the administration 
has a deliberate policy of attacking coal as a means of energy for our 
country and putting people out of work. So I would invite you to come 
down and see the suffering of our people because of that one-sided 
strategy: we are going to attack coal, but we are going to give money 
to alternative energy. There is something wrong with that.
  So I understand the gentlewoman wants to stand up for a great company 
in Ohio--I would love to come see it--because I think an all-of-the-
above strategy is good for America, but we are picking winners and 
losers with this money, and the administration is picking losers by 
attacking coal as a source of energy and a source of jobs for our 
American people. So I would hope that we would care as much about those 
coal miners in West Virginia and Kentucky and Alabama.
  Ms. KAPTUR. And Ohio.
  Mr. BYRNE. And Ohio as we do about these alternative energy programs 
that we are subsidizing. No one is subsidizing those coal miners; no 
one is subsidizing their families that have lost their means of living, 
but we are going to subsidize all these other companies--maybe they are 
doing good things, maybe they are not--because we have a lopsided 
understanding about how to produce energy in this country.
  Let the energy sector go. Let oil and natural gas and coal go. Look 
what we have done to the price of oil and the price of gas just over 
the last year because they have innovated on their own. They don't need 
the government to innovate for them. They need the government to get 
out of their way.
  If the gentlewoman wants to respond, I would be happy to yield to 
her.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I just wanted to say Ohio is a major coal-producing 
State.
  Mr. BYRNE. Then you understand what I am saying.
  Ms. KAPTUR. We will have more coal-fired utilities shut down in Ohio 
than almost any other State, so I identify with what the gentleman is 
saying. Frankly, I think that we, as a country, have to be much more 
responsive to our miners and to coal country USA. I represent the 
largest coal shipping port on the Great Lakes. I fully appreciate what 
you are saying.
  I supported that industry from the day I got here. I have supported 
research into the clean coal program and continue to do so. I just want 
you to know that. We don't disagree on harming any sector. We need them 
all.
  Mr. BYRNE. Reclaiming my time, I would just say I wish we could put 
money into that program like we do into this.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. 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 Alabama will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

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

       Page 21, lines 5 and 6, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced to $0)''.
       Page 22, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $691,886,000)''.
       Page 22, lines 20 and 21, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced to $0)''.
       Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,954,660,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from 
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the 
previous one, except this one requires energy companies of all kinds to 
fund their own research and development programs rather than continuing 
to require taxpayers to subsidize their activity to the tune of almost 
$3 billion. It does not affect the funds set aside for nuclear waste 
disposal or national defense projects.
  For too long we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can 
make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can 
do with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced a long 
line of scandals best illustrated by the Solyndra fiasco. This research 
doesn't even benefit the common good by placing these discoveries in 
the public domain. Any discoveries, although financed by the public, 
are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the private companies that receive 
these public funds. Public costs, private benefit; this is nothing but 
corporate welfare, and that is what these energy subsidies amount to.
  My amendment protects taxpayers from being forced to pay the research 
and development budgets of these companies. It gets government out of 
the energy business and requires all energy companies and all energy 
technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with their own 
funds.
  Last year when we debated similar amendments, we heard of all the 
technological breakthroughs financed by the Federal Government, from 
railroads to the Internet. We heard promises of future breakthroughs 
from this massive expenditure of public funds. I freely recognize that 
if you hand over millions of dollars of public subsidies to a private 
corporation, perhaps in Ohio, that corporation will do very well. Some 
of these dollars might even produce a breakthrough that will then be 
owned by that private corporation, and then it will do extremely well.
  But what the advocates of these subsidies fail to consider is 
Bastiat's dilemma between the seen and the unseen. We see the 
politically well-connected company that makes out like a bandit. What 
we don't see are the sacrifices that struggling families and small 
businesses must make as these taxes are taken away from them. You don't 
see small companies struggle by having to compete against their own tax 
dollars given to their corporate competitors by a doting friend in 
government. Nor do we see the breakthroughs and discoveries that these 
dollars might have purchased if they had been made by investors using 
their own money, making investments based on the highest economic 
return of these dollars.
  Politicians using other people's money make investments based on the 
highest political return of these dollars. That is the principal 
difference between Apple Computer and Solyndra or between FedEx and the 
post office. These public subsidies, in effect, take dollars that would 
have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising 
technologies and divert them into those that are politically favored. 
Dollar for dollar, this minimizes

[[Page 5914]]

our energy potential instead of maximizing it.
  For example, hydraulic fracturing has revolutionized the fossil fuels 
industry, and it offers us the very real potential of becoming energy 
independent. After the 1973 oil embargo, the Federal Government spent 
$1.5 billion on oil and gas production research, much of it on shale 
production, and accomplished nothing. The government lost interest.
  But private investors renewed research with their own money in the 
1990s and began producing the technologies that are used in today's 
boom. Public investment failed miserably; private investment succeeded 
beyond our wildest dreams. In short, if the technology is promising, it 
does not need our help; and if it isn't promising, it doesn't deserve 
our help. In either case, we have no business taking from the earnings 
of struggling families and small businesses that pay the research and 
development budgets of big corporations.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Hydraulic 
fracking has been going on for 40 or 50 years in this country, by the 
way.
  This year the committee continues its responsibility to reduce 
government spending, and we have done that. We have worked tirelessly 
to that end. The bill already cuts energy efficiency and renewable 
energy programs by $266 million below last year's request and $1.1 
billion below the budget request.
  The fossil and nuclear energy programs receive targeted increases of 
$34 million and $23 million, respectively. The increase to fossil 
energy targets advanced research that will increase the efficiency of 
power plant turbines and conserve water usage during electricity 
generation.
  The increase to nuclear energy will support security upgrades for the 
Idaho National Laboratory to protect the Nation's nuclear energy 
materials and a range of nuclear security programs at the NNSA, 
Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies.
  Although my colleague asserts the amendment would keep the government 
from intervening in the private markets, these applied energy programs 
are strategic investments for our energy independence. I appreciate my 
colleague's desire to reduce the size of the government. I agree with 
him. This amendment goes too far by eliminating the strategic 
investments we need to make for our future. I therefore oppose this 
amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it also.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to my friend 
from Idaho that he is right to point with pride to the fact that the 
Committee on Appropriations has reduced EERE spending by 16 percent. He 
is certainly on the right track. He is just building a little slowly in 
that regard.
  We want to help him by doing what is right and restoring to the 
private investors the responsibility of using their own money to 
research and develop these energy breakthroughs and leave the Federal 
Government to doing what it does best, and that is staying out and 
letting the private sector succeed.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. 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 California will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and 
     energy reliability activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $187,500,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of such 
     amount, $27,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2017, for program direction.

                             Nuclear Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, $936,161,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount, $80,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2017, for program direction 
     including official reception and representation expenses not 
     to exceed $10,000.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McClintock) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 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. 
2028) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________