[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6042-6060]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). 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 further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2028.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1917


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 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. Hultgren (Acting Chair) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) 
had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 29, line 
4.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley

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

       Page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $167,050,000)''.
       Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $167,050,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, over the next decade, the U.S. is set to 
spend hundreds of billions of dollars operating and upgrading our 
nuclear arsenal. But in this budget environment, every dollar we spend 
to keep our outdated and oversized nuclear arsenal functioning is a 
dollar we aren't spending on other priorities that keep us

[[Page 6043]]

safe and secure or on reducing our unsustainable debt and deficits. 
That is why the amendment I am offering with Mr. Polis will put $167 
million towards deficit reduction by placing funding for the new 
nuclear-armed cruise missile warhead back on its original 2015 
acquisition schedule.
  In the FY 2015 budget, production of the warhead was scheduled to 
begin in 2027, but this year's budget request sped up the development 
for the warhead by 2 years. This is despite the fact that the existing 
air-launched cruise missile and warhead isn't being phased out until 
the 2030s. And there is plenty of uncertainty about whether this 
program is affordable or even necessary.
  Chairman Simpson is so concerned about the cost of the warhead that 
language was included in the E and W report to require a red team 
assessment on the affordability of the program--and for good reason, 
given our history of spending large amounts of money on warhead 
programs that end up getting tabled.
  Given the cost concerns over the program, does it really make sense 
to rush the acquisition process?
  Furthermore, as some experts note, there is no longer a need to shoot 
nuclear cruise missiles from far away when we have the most advanced 
bomber ever created in our arsenal, the B-2 stealth bomber, which is 
capable of penetrating enemy airspace and dropping a nuclear bomb 
directly above a target. And if we decide we want to shoot nuclear 
missiles from thousands of miles away, we still have very expensive 
submarines and very expensive ICBMs capable of doing just that.
  So ask yourselves: Should we really be accelerating the development 
of a warhead that goes on a missile we don't need and could cost 
hundreds of millions, if not billions, more than anticipated?
  I ask my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to maintain 
funding at the program's FY 2015 acquisition schedule, and save the 
taxpayers $167 million in the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Ensuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons 
stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. The 
bill fully funds the $195 million needed to initiate a life extension 
program for the W80 warhead, the only nuclear-tipped cruise missile in 
the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The life extension program will replace 
nonnuclear and other components to extend the life of the W80, and to 
ensure it can be deployed on the Air Force's long-range stand off 
cruise missile, or LRSO, should that program move forward.
  The budget request was considered a 2-year acceleration of the LRSO 
program, compared to last year's stockpile plan, to meet a defense 
requirement for deployment in 2030. However, it is clear that there is 
considerable planning that needs to be accomplished by the 
administration before Congress can have confidence in these long-term 
stockpile plans.
  While 2030 may seem like many years away, these warheads are very 
complex, and there is considerable amount of work to accomplish between 
now and then. Performing additional work earlier in the schedule will 
allow the NNSA to reduce technical risk and limit any cost growth. The 
gentleman's amendment would slash funding for this effort, and that 
will add additional risk and uncertainty to the schedule.
  We must do the work that is needed to extend the life of this warhead 
as long as there is a clear defense requirement for maintaining a 
nuclear cruise missile capability. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect Chairman Simpson's request that 
language be included in the E and W report to require a red team 
assessment of the affordability of this program. All I am adding to 
that is, if we have questions about the affordability of this program, 
a program that is not going to take place for some time, do we really 
want to accelerate the spending program?
  In this budget environment, it does not make sense to accelerate the 
development of a warhead while, at the same time, requiring an 
assessment on its affordability. Why would we put more money into a 
program that may end up getting tabled? Shouldn't we at least wait 
until the release of the red team report before adjusting the 
acquisition schedule?
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to please not traffic the well 
while another Member is under recognition.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  As I said, performing additional work earlier in the schedule will 
allow the NNSA to reduce technical risk and limit any cost growth while 
we are finding out about what the red team assessment comes up with. So 
I think this is important that we defeat this amendment so that we can 
move forward with modernization of this warhead.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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

       Page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

  The Acting 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. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we just heard Mr. Quigley and Mr. 
Simpson in a debate about this very same issue, and I don't want to 
cover the exact same ground, but I want to put this in the context of, 
I think, a very serious concern that all of us ought to have.
  The rebuilding, or what is known as the life extension program for 
our nuclear bombs, is but one small part, actually, one very large 
part, but small in comparison to the total reconditioning, rebuilding 
of our entire nuclear enterprise.
  And when you consider the totality of what we are doing in this 
appropriations bill and last night, when we took up the defense 
authorization bill, you can only, and you must, come to the conclusion 
that the United States is now involved in a very significant, total 
restructuring and rebuilding of our entire nuclear deterrent system. It 
is not just the six to seven different nuclear warheads that are going 
to be rebuilt at a cost of several tens of billions of dollars; it is 
also all of the delivery systems. We are, in fact, engaged in a new 
nuclear arms race.
  Now, many of us grew up in the sixties and seventies--fifties, 
sixties, and seventies--and I think all of us have a memory of the arms 
race and all of the drills, hiding underneath the table, all of that 
trouble. I think we have a memory of what went on with the Cuban 
Missile Crisis.
  When you step back and look at what we are doing in the 
appropriations bill before us as well as in the National Defense 
Authorization Act, you must come to the conclusion that we are on

[[Page 6044]]

the path to spend $1 trillion over the next 25 to 30 years rebuilding 
the entire nuclear enterprise. We have, in this bill, all of the 
nuclear weapons.
  In this one, we went from some $9 million last year for this W80 to 
over $190 million in this bill. Yes, there are safeguards and, yes, we 
ought to pull all of this money back until we decide how this fits into 
the new cruise missile, the new long-range cruise missile replacing the 
old variety.
  That goes on the new stealth bomber, the LSRO, a new stealth bomber, 
at $550 million a copy, more than half a billion dollars a plane. A 
cruise missile, a new plane doing the exact same thing, and that is to 
be added to a new Minuteman missile for the silos in the Midwest, the 
upper Midwest, new Minuteman III missiles.
  That will be added to the new submarines that are going out there 
with new missiles and new warheads and, on top of that, some new 
stealth technology that is going on that we really can't even talk 
about.
  But it is happening, $1 trillion in a nuclear arms race that is being 
replicated by China and Russia, the United Kingdom and France.
  What in the world is this world coming to?
  This isn't Iran. Iran is a separate issue, significantly important, 
but this is different. This is the major nuclear-armed countries in the 
world, all of them, upgrading their nuclear systems.
  We have the new bombs, new precision bombs. We have the new delivery 
system, stealth. It is extraordinarily dangerous because the hair 
trigger of the past and all of the rules of the past are now going to 
be put aside, and now we have a really, really, fine hair trigger.

                              {time}  1930

  You won't know but a few minutes ahead of time when it is incoming 
because it is a stealth bomber or a cruise missile or even a hypersonic 
missile. And suddenly, there you are; you have got seconds to make a 
decision about whether you are going to annihilate the world or not. 
How do you respond to this?
  And you have got Russia over there talking about using a nuclear 
weapon as a deterrent to reduce some sort of standard military 
conflict. This is an extraordinarily dangerous situation.
  I want to draw the attention of the entire House and use this 
particular effort to reduce this account by $25 million. The gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), I think, had a better proposal, and that 
is to reduce the whole thing.
  But here we are. Pay attention, men and women of this House and of 
the Senate. Pay attention to what the overarching issue is here. It is 
the opening quarter of a new nuclear arms race among the great powers 
of the world.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The bill fully funds the request of $195 million to initiate a life 
extension program for the W80 warhead. The life extension program will 
replace nonnuclear and other components to extend the life of the W80 
and to ensure it can be deployed on the Air Force's Long-Range Standoff 
cruise missile, or the LRSO, should that program move forward.
  Certainly, the committee will look to realign the work that needs to 
be done on the W80 if there are changes to the schedule for the LRSO. 
But as long as that program stays on track, we need to make sure that 
the work that needs to be done by the NNSA is properly aligned with 
those efforts.
  The gentleman's amendment would make it more difficult for the NNSA 
to meet its schedule requirements, and I urge Members to oppose this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear 
     nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,918,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     provided by this Act for Project 99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel 
     Fabrication Facility, and by prior Acts that remain 
     unobligated for such Project, may be made available only for 
     construction and program support activities for such Project. 
     Provided further, That of the unobligated balances from prior 
     year appropriations available under this heading, $10,394,000 
     is hereby rescinded: Provided further, That no amounts may be 
     rescinded from amounts that were designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                  amendment offered by mr. fortenberry

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

       Page 29, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $13,802,000) (increased by $10,000,000) 
     (increased by $3,802,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Nebraska and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is my understanding 
that our chairman, Chairman Simpson, as well as Ranking Member Kaptur 
actually support this amendment. I want to express my gratitude to the 
chairman for working with me and thinking critically as to how we make 
our nuclear nonproliferation architecture more robust.
  What this amendment does is it moves $13.8 million from the mixed 
oxide portion of our nonproliferation account over to the nuclear 
smuggling and detection account and the research and development 
account as well.
  Nuclear smuggling and detection is an important part of our 
nonproliferation regimen, and research and development into better 
techniques to detect the illicit movement of fissile material or 
technology has to be one of the more robust policy considerations 
moving forward, not only in this appropriations bill but as a body 
here, ensuring that we, again, are focused singularly on the 
nonproliferation threats that are occurring throughout the world as 
this technology spreads and as fissile material potentially becomes 
more available to those who would use it for potentially great harm.
  I also want, in the amendment, to point out why this money is taken 
from the mixed oxide program.
  Currently in the bill, we are spending about $345 million on this 
program. But MOX is expensive, and its future is unclear. We have to 
come to some policy decision here. We keep digging this hole and 
digging this hole. This policy is adrift, and it is costing taxpayers a 
great deal of money. It is not fair in terms of public policy. It is 
not fair to taxpayers. It is not fair to the people of South Carolina 
and Georgia because of this uncertainty.
  So we need a decision here. If it is, No, we are not going to proceed 
with MOX, then we have to develop an understanding of what we are going 
to do with this material, whether it is blend it down or store it or 
whether we need to rethink the entire public policy that led us to this 
point, which is about 20 years old, and whether perhaps this ought to 
become some sort of international consortium, for instance, to deal 
with this particular issue and share in the cost.

[[Page 6045]]

  If the answer is, Yes, we are going to proceed with MOX, then 
spending $345 million a year to sort of keep it open, with a little bit 
extra, and that cost to keep it open--to keep it in cold storage, as we 
say--is approximately $200 million, so we throw in a little more on 
top. It doesn't get us to final completion. It doesn't even really get 
us on that road.
  So the policy here is adrift, and we have got to come to some deeper 
consideration as to what we are going to do.
  The problem with MOX fundamentally is the initial cost was $1 
billion. Now we are looking at $7 billion. The lifecycle costs are 
skyrocketing. So some clear, deliberate decision. And if it is ``yes,'' 
we need to expedite this, and we need to do so in a cost-conscious 
manner. If it is ``no,'' let's turn to other alternatives quickly so 
that we can move more of these funds into the robust portions of our 
nonproliferation regimen, our architecture to ensure that we bring down 
the probability of a nuclear weapons explosion as close to zero as 
possible, ensuring as well that we are keeping this material out of 
others hands.
  With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for taking up 
this issue. The MOX facility lifecycle cost is now over $47 billion and 
at the end of the day will not solve the problem.
  The disposition of the unnecessary plutonium stock can be done in 
other ways. We ought to set aside that money. You are quite correct to 
put it into nonproliferation issues, trying to figure out where the 
loose nukes might be around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I will draw your attention and the attention of the 
gentlemen and gentlewomen here today that in yesterday's National 
Defense Authorization Act, those facilities that sense the movement of 
nuclear materials across borders, the in-place were withdrawn, taken 
out. We ought to pay attention to that, put those back in in one more 
piece.
  I commend the gentleman for being right on. And we do need to sort 
out the MOX facility and come to some conclusion; otherwise, we are in 
a $47 billion rathole that won't solve the problem.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for trying to work with me. This 
is a difficult position. The chairman has a very difficult task here of 
balancing competing ends. I really appreciate the way in which he has 
artfully drawn together an important bill here.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his efforts in 
nonproliferation and his strong advocacy for this program and trying to 
become the expert. And really, he is what I consider maybe one of the 
foremost experts in the House on nonproliferation issues. I thank both 
the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from California for their 
efforts in this area.
  It is a challenging issue for us. You know, I was interested to hear 
the $47 billion because I have heard $31 billion. I have heard $30 
billion. There are all sorts of different estimates, and we haven't got 
the numbers of how they came to these conclusions. And when they look 
to the alternatives in this report that just came out from the 
Department, they said, if I remember correctly, the downblend 
activities had a cost that was much less. But if you look at the 
downblend alternatives, what they didn't add into it is that you would 
put that material in WIPP theoretically.
  First of all, you would have to get WIPP extended. It is supposed to 
be closed. So you have got a 15-year extension of what you would have 
to do. There was no cost in there for the operation of WIPP for those 
15 years and what it was going to cost. So we are still having a hard 
time coming to grips with what the actual cost of the different 
alternatives are.
  This is one of those things that it is frustrating for our committee, 
I think, over the years for a lot of different things. Where we head 
down one path, spend billions of dollars, and then all of a sudden, 
change directions. And it seems like we are throwing money away.
  But I am open to looking at what the alternatives are, and I want to 
look at the numbers behind the report that came out. But this amendment 
simply adds and reduces the defense nuclear nonproliferation account by 
the same amount. Therefore, the language of the amendment doesn't 
change the amounts directed specifically for the MOX project in the 
House report, which will continue to be funded at $345 million.
  But I understand both of your concerns. They are concerns I share. 
And they are concerns we need to address because you are absolutely 
right. If we are not going to go down this road, we shouldn't be 
spending $345 million a year.
  Now we are going to spend a bunch of money at the start. Even if you 
close it down, it is going to cost some money, or if you stop it. So 
all of that needs to be taken into consideration. But we need to make a 
determination of what is going to happen with MOX and what we are going 
to do with this additional plutonium.
  Some people have suggested maybe the best thing to do is store it. Of 
course that violates an agreement that we have with the Russians. So 
you would have to get their agreement on that. So it is a challenging 
issue, I will be the first to admit. And we have had a challenge in the 
committee trying to deal with it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Idaho's concerns and 
the way he is approaching it is really quite commendable and the right 
way to go about it. Two studies have been done, the most recent dealing 
with the $47 million. That speaks to the current MOX procedure and 
process. The blending down, you have correctly analyzed the problem 
there because it doesn't take into account the full cost, and then you 
have still got to dispose of this stuff someplace.
  There is also the vitrification of it, which is blending down, 
putting it into a glass container, and then storing that. Those have 
problems.
  There is another option that will be analyzed and is coming out later 
in this year, in September, and that is the use of a fast reactor to 
actually burn the plutonium and, thereby, make it unusable for weapons. 
It also would generate a significant amount of energy, which could 
produce steam and electrical energy along the way. That study is coming 
out later this year.
  In the meantime, we ought to do what you are doing here, and that is, 
just slow down, take a look at this.
  And for those who are concerned about the jobs in the Savannah River 
area, a lot of this work can be done there in any one of these options. 
Just don't do something that doesn't work, which is the current process 
underway. So you could do a fast reactor there. Use that as a method of 
consuming the plutonium and rendering it unuseful.
  There are many different ways to do it. But we are headed down a 
rathole. Slow down. Stop.
  I commend both the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from 
Idaho for where they are going on this. Carry on.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from California. And I thank the 
gentleman from Nebraska, again, for his efforts in this area. I know it 
is a matter of both urgency to the United States and to the world, 
actually. But I thank the gentleman for his efforts in this arena, and 
continue on.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Again, let me just reiterate my deep thanks to the 
chairman for his leadership on this. This is a tough one, and he is 
working aggressively to try to get to the heart of a prudential and 
good decision.
  Let me thank, again, the gentleman from California for his insights 
and participation as well.

[[Page 6046]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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

       Page 29, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $105,000,000)''.

  The Acting 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. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I want to raise an issue along the lines 
of my earlier discussion and part of what we just heard in the previous 
discussion. That is, where are we going with the nuclear enterprise? 
What is it all about? Where will it take us?
  My personal view is that we are in the first quarter of a new nuclear 
arms race. This amendment deals with a critical part of that effort to 
rebuild the nuclear weapons systems of the United States.
  We currently have maybe 10,000 unused nuclear plutonium pits. This is 
the heart of a nuclear bomb. It is pure plutonium, and it is the heart 
of the bomb.
  The 10,000 that are not used came out of nuclear weapons that have 
been dismantled as a result of the various arms control treaties that 
have been in place over the last 30 years, all to the good. The MOX 
facility deals with that unused excess plutonium and others. But this 
amendment deals with the notion of rebuilding and increasing the 
capacity of the United States to produce new plutonium pits.

                              {time}  1945

  We presently have the capacity to produce somewhere between 5 and 10 
plutonium pits, again, the heart of a nuclear weapon, in the existing 
facilities. We are going to spend a few billion dollars--unknown--but 
somewhere probably between $1 billion and $2 billion or $3 billion 
building the facilities to increase the capacity to manufacture these 
plutonium pits to 50 to 80 a year.
  Now, testimony that we have received in the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee indicates that 
nobody knows what you are going to do with them or whether you even 
need the pits, but they want to build the facility just in case.
  You go: Wait a minute, you have 10,000 out there; what are you going 
to do? Why are you doing this?
  It has never been answered other than: Well, we might need it some 
day.
  Well, God willing, we will never need it some day. Five to 10 a year, 
more than we need, 50 to 80, the military doesn't know what to do with 
it; the NNSA doesn't know what to do with it, but they want to build 
the manufacturing facility even so.
  This amendment simply says let's take $125 million of that and apply 
it to something useful like cleaning up what is going on out there. 
Just keep in mind that we are talking about an enormous amount of money 
here for the production or the manufacturing facilities of these pits.
  It is not just the facility for the plutonium, but it is also for the 
rest of the bombs, so it is probably going to be well over $10 billion 
by the time we finish, and then you have the operating costs, if we 
ever operate at all. Be careful here. We are into a massive expenditure 
of over $1 trillion over the next 20 to 25 years.
  I have asked the military: Tell us how we are going to spend that.
  They say: Well, we really don't know.
  They gave me a document that is a bunch of equations with no 
explanation of what the factors are. I am asking for information. I was 
shut down in committee yesterday, but we all ought to demand 
information.
  What is going on here? What are we talking about? A new long-range 
stealth bomber to replace the B-2, new cruise missiles, new submarines, 
new missiles for land and sea, and new warheads to go on top of it; 
and, all the while, other countries are trying to match us. It is a 
nuclear arms race well underway.
  Are we causing it? We are clearly part of it. Russia and China are 
also involved in this and matching technology, spending a vast amount 
of money. Just think what we could do if we took one-quarter of that 
and spent it on education. What could we do for the American people? I 
think I hear the knock-knock of time having run out, and that frightens 
me because time is running out on this issue, and we need to pay 
attention here.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Simpson and his committee for paying 
attention to all of this.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Could I just ask for clarification? Which of your 
amendments are you addressing in your arguments now? It was our 
understanding the gentleman was addressing the MOX facility. Are you 
addressing that or your prior amendment?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am addressing the facilities, the nuclear pit 
facilities, the plutonium pit facilities. It is $125 million. The MOX 
was my colleague from Nebraska's amendment. That was his amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  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, the amendment you are speaking to on the 
pit production is an end of the bill amendment, and we are not yet at 
the end of the bill.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. So I can come back and do it again?
  Mr. SIMPSON. There you go. The amendment that was reported by the 
Clerk was the MOX facility that took $125 million out of the MOX 
facility.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. That is correct.
  Mr. SIMPSON. That was the amendment that was reported by the Clerk.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. That is what I was speaking to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. You have another amendment that deals with pit 
production?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. If I can go back and talk about the MOX facility now. 
I stand corrected.
  The 125 was the MOX facility amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Our arguments and the debate that we just had with the 
gentleman from Nebraska about the MOX facility and the challenges that 
we face in the MOX facility is the same as the debate we just had, and 
while we asked for the Department to look at the two alternatives, the 
downblend and the continuing MOX, the Armed Services Committee asked 
for a report on all five of the alternatives that they were looking at 
and the cost and stuff.
  I would oppose this amendment of taking $125 million out of the MOX 
facility.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, if we are, in fact, about to entertain the 
MOX amendment, I would love to speak in opposition to that amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. This is the amendment that has been reported.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. If the gentleman would yield for 15 seconds, I will 
explain the error, and then I will be out of the way.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Quite correct, there was an error on my part.
  This is the question of the MOX facility, $125 million to be applied 
to other cleanup programs across the Nation. That is it. I spoke on a 
different issue, and the MOX facility came up earlier.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

[[Page 6047]]


  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment. I do 
so because I really believe that this amendment would endanger our 
national security by making harmful cuts to the Mixed Oxide Fuel 
Fabrication Facility that is located in South Carolina.
  This facility will be used to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons 
grade plutonium according to binding international agreements 
originally signed back in 2000 and reaffirmed in 2010. Most of the 
plutonium has already been transferred to the Savannah River site, and 
it is there awaiting disposition through the MOX facility.
  The President has requested the level of funding included in this 
bill to continue construction. The facility is over 65 percent complete 
and supports over 1,500 highly skilled jobs. Any further delay will 
jeopardize our international agreements and will abandon commitments 
that the country has made to the State of South Carolina when we signed 
and agreed to house these dangerous materials for our Nation.
  I want to close by saying South Carolina has developed what I call a 
level of tolerance for nuclear. It didn't get there, as we say down in 
Gullah Geechee country, just by itself. We got there because of the 
commitment we made to this Nation years ago with the Manhattan Project.
  I believe the State of South Carolina and the Savannah River site 
have made significant commitments to helping secure this Nation. I 
believe we would be breaking faith with the State to cripple this 
effort at this time because it is an agreement, the agreements are 
international, and I think we have a commitment to the State of South 
Carolina to continue the movement on this project.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be opposed.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which has 
jurisdiction over the NRC, our committee has taken a close look at the 
regulatory priorities and resource needs of the commission.
  The Energy and Power Subcommittee oversees nuclear energy, and the 
Environment and Economy Subcommittee has oversight on nuclear waste. I 
serve on both subcommittees.
  In both committee and subcommittees, we have held hearings in recent 
years with the commissioners on the NRC, as well as other experts and 
stakeholders. In these hearings, we have learned important facts such 
as, while the Nation's fleet of nuclear reactors continues to operate 
safely, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the NRC's budget exceeds 
what is reasonably necessary in light of current regulatory and 
licensing needs. We have further learned that--and the NRC Chairman 
recently acknowledged--the NRC budget needs to be right-sized to some 
degree.
  We have also focused on the fact that, unlike most other Federal 
agencies, 90 percent of the NRC's budget is recovered through fees on 
nuclear licensees, which are eventually paid through electric rates.
  This means that an outsized NRC budget is actually paid for by the 
American people, both through their taxes and their electric rates. We 
have also seen recent closures of nuclear power plants in the United 
States and fewer new plants coming online than anticipated a decade 
ago. In fact, even though the number of nuclear plants is currently 
decreasing, the NRC budget has increased substantially compared to 10 
years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee and 
the chairman for acting to provide a level of appropriations for the 
NRC that is appropriate under the circumstances. This budget gives the 
NRC all it needs to ensure the safe operation of the Nation's nuclear 
fleet without asking taxpayers and electricity ratepayers to pay more 
than is necessary.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his interest in this subject. 
I can assure you that the subcommittee is very concerned also, and we 
look forward to working with you and your committees as we try to 
right-size the NRC and all of the budgets that we will be doing in the 
future.
  As you said, the NRC is well aware of the fact that they need to 
right-size themselves as they try to attempt to implement their Project 
Aim 2020, so I appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             Naval Reactors

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval 
     reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or 
     otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment, 
     facilities, and facility expansion, $1,320,394,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That $43,500,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2017, for program direction.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Langevin

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

       Page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,426,400).''
       Page 30, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,500,000).''

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would support beginning an 
assessment of the feasibility of using low-enriched uranium in naval 
reactor fuel that would meet military requirements.
  Using low-enriched uranium in naval reactor fuel could yield 
significant potential national security benefits related to nuclear 
nonproliferation, could lower security costs, and supports naval 
reactor research and development at the cutting edge of nuclear 
science.
  As we continue to face the threat of nuclear terrorism and as 
countries continue to develop naval fuel for military purposes, the 
imperative to reduce the use of highly enriched uranium will become 
increasingly important over the next several decades. This is the time 
to begin investments in new technologies to address proliferation 
threats and to reduce reliance on highly enriched uranium.
  R&D on LEU for naval reactors would also support continued R&D within 
Naval Reactors at the cutting edge of nuclear science and engineering, 
which remains a critical capability. The Naval Reactors director 
Admiral Richardson testified on March 24, 2015, before the House Armed 
Services Committee that, with current technology, using low-enriched 
uranium fuel would only be feasible for aircraft carriers and would 
require an additional refueling at a cost of $1 billion.
  He added, however:

       The potential exists that we could develop an advanced fuel 
     system that might increase uranium loading and make low-
     enriched uranium possible while still meeting very rigorous 
     performance requirements for naval reactors on nuclear-
     powered warships.

  Mr. Chairman, this $2.5 million in funding would support early 
testing and manufacturing development required to advance LEU 
technology for use in naval fuel. Such a program, if successful, could 
yield significant benefits for nuclear nonproliferation and yield 
security cost savings.

[[Page 6048]]

  Mr. Chairman, it sounds like we have broad-based support for this 
amendment. I urge acceptance of this amendment in order to start this 
very important effort, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2000

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Federal Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for Federal Salaries and Expenses in 
     the National Nuclear Security Administration, $388,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2017, including 
     official reception and representation expenses not to exceed 
     $12,000.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one fire apparatus pumper truck and one armored 
     vehicle for replacement only, $5,055,550,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of such amount 
     $281,951,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for 
     program direction.

     Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities for Department of Energy 
     contributions for uranium enrichment decontamination and 
     decommissioning activities, $471,797,000, to be deposited 
     into the Defense Environmental Cleanup account which shall be 
     transferred to the ``Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
     Decommissioning Fund''.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense, 
     other defense activities, and classified activities, in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, $767,570,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount, $253,729,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2017, for program direction.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     the Shoshone Paiute Trout Hatchery, the Spokane Tribal 
     Hatchery, the Snake River Sockeye Weirs and, in addition, for 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $5,000: Provided, That during fiscal year 2016, 
     no new direct loan obligations may be made.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For expenses necessary for operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and for marketing electric 
     power and energy, including transmission wheeling and 
     ancillary services, pursuant to section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the 
     southeastern power area, $6,900,000, including official 
     reception and representation expenses in an amount not to 
     exceed $1,500, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944, up to $6,900,000 collected by the 
     Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of power and 
     related services shall be credited to this account as 
     discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available 
     until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual 
     expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses 
     shall be reduced as collections are received during the 
     fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $66,500,000 collected by the Southeastern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to 
     recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further, 
     That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For expenses necessary for operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and for marketing electric 
     power and energy, for construction and acquisition of 
     transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, 
     and for administrative expenses, including official reception 
     and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 
     in carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 
     (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power 
     Administration, $47,361,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), 
     up to $35,961,000 collected by the Southwestern Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern 
     Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $11,400,000: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $63,000,000 collected 
     by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant to the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 to recover purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as 
     offsetting collections, to remain available until expended 
     for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
     expenditures: Provided further, That, for purposes of this 
     appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are 
     generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred 
     (excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).

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

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7152), and other related activities including conservation 
     and renewable resources programs as authorized, $307,714,000, 
     including official reception and representation expenses in 
     an amount not to exceed $1,500, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $302,000,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the 
     Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a), 
     up to $214,342,000 collected by the Western Area Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area 
     Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $93,372,000, of which $87,658,000 is derived 
     from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $352,813,000 collected 
     by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant to the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project Act of 
     1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further, 
     That, for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $4,490,000, to remain available until expended, and to be 
     derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 
     Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in 
     section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255): 
     Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of that Act and 
     of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $4,262,000 collected by the Western 
     Area Power Administration from the sale of power and related 
     services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall be credited 
     to this account as discretionary offsetting collections, to 
     remain available until expended for the sole purpose of 
     funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities 
     of these Dams and associated Western Area Power 
     Administration activities: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $228,000: Provided further, That for purposes 
     of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures 
     that are generally recovered in the same year that

[[Page 6049]]

     they are incurred: Provided further, That for fiscal year 
     2016, the Administrator of the Western Area Power 
     Administration may accept up to $460,000 in funds contributed 
     by United States power customers of the Falcon and Amistad 
     Dams for deposit into the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 
     Maintenance Fund, and such funds shall be available for the 
     purpose for which contributed in like manner as if said sums 
     had been specifically appropriated for such purpose: Provided 
     further, That any such funds shall be available without 
     further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation for 
     use by the Commissioner of the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission for the sole 
     purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, 
     replacing, or upgrading the hydroelectric facilities at these 
     Dams in accordance with agreements reached between the 
     Administrator, Commissioner, and the power customers.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, official reception 
     and representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, and the 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, $319,800,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, not to exceed $319,800,000 of 
     revenues from fees and annual charges, and other services and 
     collections in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and used 
     for expenses necessary in this account, and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as 
     revenues are received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result 
     in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the general 
     fund estimated at not more than $0.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

             (including transfer and rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made 
     available by this title for the Department of Energy shall be 
     used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity 
     or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar 
     arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for 
     Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a 
     program, project, or activity if the program, project, or 
     activity has not been funded by Congress.
       (b)(1) Unless the Secretary of Energy notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress at 
     least 3 full business days in advance, none of the funds made 
     available in this title may be used to--
       (A) make a grant allocation or discretionary grant award 
     totaling $1,000,000 or more;
       (B) make a discretionary contract award or Other 
     Transaction Agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more, including 
     a contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
       (C) issue a letter of intent to make an allocation, award, 
     or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph (A) or 
     (B); or
       (D) announce publicly the intention to make an allocation, 
     award, or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B).
       (2) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 15 days 
     of the conclusion of each quarter a report detailing each 
     grant allocation or discretionary grant award totaling less 
     than $1,000,000 provided during the previous quarter.
       (3) The notification required by paragraph (1) and the 
     report required by paragraph (2) shall include the recipient 
     of the award, the amount of the award, the fiscal year for 
     which the funds for the award were appropriated, the account 
     and program, project, or activity from which the funds are 
     being drawn, the title of the award, and a brief description 
     of the activity for which the award is made.
       (c) The Department of Energy may not, with respect to any 
     program, project, or activity that uses budget authority made 
     available in this title under the heading ``Department of 
     Energy--Energy Programs'', enter into a multiyear contract, 
     award a multiyear grant, or enter into a multiyear 
     cooperative agreement unless--
       (1) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is funded 
     for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time 
     of award; or
       (2) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement includes 
     a clause conditioning the Federal Government's obligation on 
     the availability of future year budget authority and the 
     Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress at least 3 days in advance.
       (d) Except as provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g), 
     the amounts made available by this title shall be expended as 
     authorized by law for the programs, projects, and activities 
     specified in the ``Bill'' column in the ``Department of 
     Energy'' table included under the heading ``Title III--
     Department of Energy'' in the report of the Committee on 
     Appropriations accompanying this Act.
       (e) The amounts made available by this title may be 
     reprogrammed for any program, project, or activity, and the 
     Department shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress at least 30 days prior to the use of 
     any proposed reprogramming that would cause any program, 
     project, or activity funding level to increase or decrease by 
     more than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, during 
     the time period covered by this Act.
       (f) None of the funds provided in this title shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates, initiates, or eliminates a program, project, 
     or activity;
       (2) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act; or
       (3) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
       (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy may waive any requirement or 
     restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds 
     made available for the Department of Energy if compliance 
     with such requirement or restriction would pose a substantial 
     risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national 
     security.
       (2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of any waiver under 
     paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but not later than 3 
     days after the date of the activity to which a requirement or 
     restriction would otherwise have applied. Such notice shall 
     include an explanation of the substantial risk under 
     paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver.
       Sec. 302.  The unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be available to the 
     same appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with 
     funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter 
     may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
     originally enacted.
       Sec. 303.  Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or 
     made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2016 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
       Sec. 304.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used for the construction of facilities classified 
     as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830 
     unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of 
     Independent Enterprise Assessments to ensure the project is 
     in compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
       Sec. 305.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical 
     decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any 
     successive departmental guidance, for construction projects 
     where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a 
     separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the 
     project for that critical decision.
       Sec. 306.  Notwithstanding section 301(c) of this Act, none 
     of the funds made available under the heading ``Department of 
     Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be used for a 
     multiyear contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other 
     Transaction Agreement of $1,000,000 or less unless the 
     contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction 
     Agreement is funded for the full period of performance as 
     anticipated at the time of award.
       Sec. 307. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any prior Act under the heading ``Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation'' may be made available to enter into new 
     contracts with, or new agreements for Federal assistance to, 
     the Russian Federation.
       (b) The Secretary of Energy may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that such activity 
     is in the national security interests of the United States. 
     This waiver authority may not be delegated.
       (c) A waiver under subsection (b) shall not be effective 
     until 15 days after the date on which the Secretary submits 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress, in classified form if necessary, a report on the 
     justification for the waiver.
       Sec. 308. (a) Notification of Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     Drawdown.--None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any prior Act, or funds made available in the SPR Petroleum 
     Account, may be used to conduct a drawdown (including a test 
     drawdown) and sale or exchange of petroleum products from the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve unless the Secretary of Energy 
     provides notice, in accordance with subsection (b), of such 
     exchange, or drawdown (including a test drawdown) to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       (b)(1) Content of notification.--The notification required 
     under subsection (a) shall include at a minimum--
       (A) the justification for the drawdown or exchange, 
     including--
       (i) a specific description of any obligation under 
     international energy agreements; and
       (ii) in the case of a test drawdown, the specific aspects 
     of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be tested;

[[Page 6050]]

       (B) the provisions of law (including regulations) 
     authorizing the drawdown or exchange;
       (C) the number of barrels of petroleum products proposed to 
     be withdrawn or exchanged;
       (D) the location of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve site or 
     sites from which the petroleum products are proposed to be 
     withdrawn;
       (E) a good faith estimate of the expected proceeds from the 
     sale of the petroleum products;
       (F) an estimate of the total inventories of petroleum 
     products in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve after the 
     anticipated drawdown;
       (G) a detailed plan for disposition of the proceeds after 
     deposit into the SPR Petroleum Account; and
       (H) a plan for refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
     including whether the acquisition will be of the same or a 
     different petroleum product.
       (2) Timing of notification.--The Secretary shall provide 
     the notification required under subsection (a)--
       (A) in the case of an exchange or a drawdown, as soon as 
     practicable after the exchange or drawdown has occurred; and
       (B) in the case of a test drawdown, not later than 30 days 
     prior to the test drawdown.
       (c) Post-sale Notification.--In addition to reporting 
     requirements under other provisions of law, the Secretary 
     shall, upon the execution of all contract awards associated 
     with a competitive sale of petroleum products, notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of 
     the actual value of the proceeds from the sale.
       (d)(1) New regional reserves.--The Secretary may not 
     establish any new regional petroleum product reserve unless 
     funding for the proposed regional petroleum product reserve 
     is explicitly requested in advance in an annual budget 
     submission and approved by the Congress in an appropriations 
     Act.
       (2) The budget request or notification shall include--
       (A) the justification for the new reserve;
       (B) a cost estimate for the establishment, operation, and 
     maintenance of the reserve, including funding sources;
       (C) a detailed plan for operation of the reserve, including 
     the conditions upon which the products may be released;
       (D) the location of the reserve; and
       (E) the estimate of the total inventory of the reserve.
       Sec. 309.  Of the amounts made available by this Act for 
     ``National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons 
     Activities'', up to $50,000,000 may be reprogrammed within 
     such account for Domestic Uranium Enrichment, subject to the 
     notice requirement in section 301(e).
       Sec. 310. (a) Unobligated balances available from 
     appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2010 are hereby 
     permanently rescinded from the following accounts of the 
     Department of Energy in the specified amounts:
       (1) ``Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy'', $16,677,000.
       (2) ``Energy Programs--Electricity Delivery and Energy 
     Reliability'', $900,000.
       (3) ``Energy Programs--Nuclear Energy'', $1,665,000.
       (4) ``Energy Programs--Fossil Energy Research and 
     Development'', $12,064,000.
       (5) ``Energy Programs--Science'', $4,717,000.
       (6) ``Power Marketing Administrations--Construction, 
     Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
     Administration'', $4,832,000.
       (b) No amounts may be rescinded by this section from 
     amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, 
     notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, and for expenses necessary 
     for the Federal Co-Chairman and the Alternate on the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment of the Federal 
     share of the administrative expenses of the Commission, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, $95,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $29,900,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017.

                        Delta Regional Authority

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Delta Regional Authority and 
     to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta 
     Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections 
     382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, $12,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                           Denali Commission

       For expenses necessary for the Denali Commission including 
     the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and 
     capital equipment as necessary and other expenses, 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     notwithstanding the limitations contained in section 306(g) 
     of the Denali Commission Act of 1998: Provided, That funds 
     shall be available for construction projects in an amount not 
     to exceed 80 percent of total project cost for distressed 
     communities, as defined by section 307 of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998 (division C, title III, Public Law 
     105-277), as amended by section 701 of appendix D, title VII, 
     Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-280), and an amount not 
     to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.

                  Northern Border Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary for the Northern Border Regional 
     Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle 
     V of title 40, United States Code, $3,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall 
     be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding 
     section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

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

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, $1,003,233,000, including official 
     representation expenses not to exceed $25,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $25,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That of the 
     amount appropriated herein, not more than $9,500,000 may be 
     made available for salaries, travel, and other support costs 
     for the Office of the Commission, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017, of which, notwithstanding section 
     201(a)(2)(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5841(a)(2)(c)), the use and expenditure shall only be 
     approved by a majority vote of the Commission: Provided 
     further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $862,274,000 in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and used 
     for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues 
     received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $140,959,000: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for 
     university research and development in areas relevant to 
     their respective organization's mission, and $5,000,000 shall 
     be for a Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program that 
     will support multiyear projects that do not align with 
     programmatic missions but are critical to maintaining the 
     discipline of nuclear science and engineering.

                      office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $12,136,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2017: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $10,060,000 in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and be 
     available until September 30, 2017, for necessary salaries 
     and expenses in this account, notwithstanding section 3302 of 
     title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of 
     revenues received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result in 
     a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at not more 
     than $2,076,000: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated under this heading, $958,000 shall be for 
     Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board, which shall not be available from fee revenues.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $3,600,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2017.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the Federal 
     Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects 
     pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, $1,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That 
     any fees, charges, or commissions received pursuant to 
     section 106(h) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (15 
     U.S.C. 720d(h)) in fiscal year 2016 in excess of $2,402,000 
     shall not be available for obligation until appropriated in a 
     subsequent Act of Congress.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Sec. 401.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall comply 
     with the July 5, 2011,

[[Page 6051]]

     version of Chapter VI of its Internal Commission Procedures 
     when responding to Congressional requests for information.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence 
     congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
     matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to 
     Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
       Sec. 502. (a) None of the funds made available in title III 
     of this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government, except 
     pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided 
     in this Act or any other appropriations Act for any fiscal 
     year, transfer authority referenced in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, or any 
     authority whereby a department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the United States Government may provide goods or services to 
     another department, agency, or instrumentality.
       (b) None of the funds made available for any department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government 
     may be transferred to accounts funded in title III of this 
     Act, except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer 
     authority provided in this Act or any other appropriations 
     Act for any fiscal year, transfer authority referenced in the 
     report of the Committee on Appropriations accompanying this 
     Act, or any authority whereby a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government may provide 
     goods or services to another department, agency, or 
     instrumentality.
       (c) The head of any relevant department or agency funded in 
     this Act utilizing any transfer authority shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a 
     semiannual report detailing the transfer authorities, except 
     for any authority whereby a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government may provide 
     goods or services to another department, agency, or 
     instrumentality, used in the previous 6 months and in the 
     year-to-date. This report shall include the amounts 
     transferred and the purposes for which they were transferred, 
     and shall not replace or modify existing notification 
     requirements for each authority.
       Sec. 503.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of 
     February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
     Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations).
       Sec. 504.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to conduct closure of adjudicatory functions, 
     technical review, or support activities associated with the 
     Yucca Mountain geologic repository license application, or 
     for actions that irrevocably remove the possibility that 
     Yucca Mountain may be a repository option in the future.
       Sec. 505.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to further implementation of the coastal and marine 
     spatial planning and ecosystem-based management components of 
     the National Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order 
     13547 of July 19, 2010.

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 506.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McKinley

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from West Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, there have been efforts to privatize and 
consolidate the National Energy Technology Laboratory, also known to us 
as NETL. This amendment is offered to eliminate that uncertainty of 
privatization and to continue the present public-private partnership.
  NETL is our Nation's premier energy laboratory for fossil energy, 
using 600 government scientists, technicians, and employees, but they 
couple that with nearly 1,200 private sector contractors. Through this 
partnership, NETL has developed breakthrough research, carbon capture, 
enhanced natural gas exploration and production, emission control for 
our power plants, and steam and gas turbine efficiency.
  Having NETL government owned and operated also maintains that the 
research that they produce will not be proprietary and is available to 
all utility companies. Small utility companies in rural America where I 
come from would potentially suffer the most from a move towards 
privatization, and they would no longer be able to perform this 
research and be forced to buy the new technologies at very high costs.
  Mr. Chairman, who would end up paying these high costs? The limited 
customers of these small companies through higher electric bills.
  People looking to privatize and consolidate these laboratories seem 
to be searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  This amendment would prevent the Department from transforming the 
National Energy Technology Laboratory into a government-owned, 
contractor-operated laboratory, or to consolidate or close NETL.
  NETL does important research in support of a balanced energy 
portfolio that will increase the efficiency and safe usage of abundant 
natural resources in this Nation.
  I appreciate my colleague's passion for this issue, and I have no 
objection to this amendment being included in the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Babin

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     under the heading ``Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'' may be 
     made available to enter into new contracts with, or new 
     agreements for Federal assistance to the Islamic Republic of 
     Iran except for contracts or agreements that require the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran to cease the pursuit, acquisition, 
     and development of nuclear weapons technology.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that I strongly 
support programs and operations that are funded by the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation section of the underlying bill.
  Keeping loose nuclear materials--especially from places like the 
former Soviet Union states--out of the hands of America's enemies is 
one of the most important duties of the Department of Energy and the 
Federal Government as a whole. That being said, Congress has the 
obligation to set requirements and criteria for every dollar of 
taxpayer money that we spend, especially funds that are sent or used 
overseas. In fact, my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee 
already exercised this judgment with an additional provision in their 
bill that is very similar to the amendments that I will be offering 
today.
  Section 307 of the underlying bill specifically prohibits any DOE 
nonproliferation funds from being used to enter into new contracts or 
agreements with Russia, sending a strong signal to Mr. Putin and others 
that there are real consequences for their irresponsible and 
destabilizing actions of the last few years.
  My amendment adds this section to the end of the bill:

[[Page 6052]]

  ``None of the funds made available in this Act under the heading 
`Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation' may be made available to enter into 
new contracts with, or new agreements for Federal assistance to the 
Islamic Republic of Iran except for contracts or agreements that 
require the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease the pursuit, acquisition, 
and development of nuclear weapons technology.''
  If the last line of my amendment sounds familiar, it should. It is 
the very same language that Congress defined as total disarmament of 
Iran's weapons of mass destruction program when it passed the 
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 
2010. That bill passed the Senate by a vote of 99-0 and in the House 
408-8, and only two of the Members who voted ``no'' on that bill still 
serve here in Congress today.
  There is a lot to be worried about in President Obama's deal with 
Iran, but two serious concerns trump all of the others:
  First, how will Iran properly deal with and dispose of 14,000 
centrifuges and 9,700 kilograms of highly enriched uranium that they 
are supposed to give up?
  And if they are serious about not pursuing a bomb, what are they 
planning to do with the 6,000 centrifuges and 300 kilograms of uranium 
that they get to keep under this deal?
  On the first question, the Web site Vox, hardly a rightwing outlet, 
says that the disposal of these materials is an open question and that 
the negotiators punted on how to safely and effectively remove this 
material from Iran. Given that fact, there is every reason to believe 
that the DOE nonproliferation account could be used for this purpose.
  The second question is even more troubling than the first. Michael 
Morrell, former Director of the CIA, said back in February that ``the 
potential Iran nuclear agreement would limit Iran to the number of 
centrifuges needed for a weapon but too few for a nuclear power 
program,'' a statement verified as ``true'' by PolitiFact.

                              {time}  2015

  Iran's leaders have repeatedly said they have no interest in 
developing a nuclear weapon, and over the years, they have made that 
promise to the international community to gain relief from crippling 
economic sanctions. I don't trust Iran, but even if I did, I would 
still say that we follow President Reagan's charge that led us to 
victory when facing another nuclear foe: trust but verify.
  Let me be clear. If Iran proves that they are serious about giving up 
all of their nuclear ambitions, I fully support using DOE 
nonproliferation assets to get their nuclear materials safely out of 
that country. Why, I would write a check myself to make sure that my 
grandkids don't grow up in a world where loose Iranian nuclear material 
makes its way to the black market or into the hands of terrorists.
  But Iran can't have one without the other. That is why my amendment 
will make sure that, if DOE signs a contract with Iran to help remove 
nuclear material from Iran, it will also stipulate that they are giving 
up all efforts to build a bomb.
  This is a commonsense amendment that reiterates the position of 
Congress and the promises made by President Obama's negotiating team. I 
urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I share a great desire to 
prevent the spread of Iran's nuclear capabilities, but the only thing 
that, unfortunately, your amendment does is endanger security, 
including America's security.
  We can differ on how we work with Iran on the broader issue of 
conditions for an agreement on sanctions and their nuclear program, but 
that is not the issue we are debating here today. What we are debating 
here today is the nonproliferation program at the Department of Energy. 
Stopping the spread of dangerous materials from the Republic of Iran is 
in our Nation's interest regardless of the outcome of the broader 
discussion.
  While there are currently no plans to work in Iran and no funding 
that directly supports work in Iran, let me give you a few examples of 
what your amendment would stop, would preclude:
  One, the Department of Energy's nonproliferation program might be 
asked to engage with Iran to facilitate the removal of excess low-
enriched uranium or heavy water from Iran. Such an engagement could 
necessitate contracts to arrange for the packaging, shipment, and 
disposition of such materials and would be prevented by the proposed 
amendment.
  Second, the Department of Energy's nonproliferation program might 
also be asked to engage with Iran to strengthen Iran's nuclear safety, 
nuclear security, or nuclear safeguard practices. Such engagement could 
require contracts to provide technical expertise or support logistical 
arrangements and would be prevented by your amendment.
  There may be some who want to use any bill, including our bill, to 
make political points, but shouldn't we be more concerned about 
endangering American lives and the lives of other innocents around the 
world? Wouldn't you prefer that this material be under lock and key in 
the United States, for example, or with one of our allies than have it 
stored in Iran? I can only speculate that our security practices are 
much better.
  This amendment has no place in this bill, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would still earnestly urge an ``aye'' 
vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Babin

  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Committee call up amendment 
No. 4.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     under the heading ``Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'' may be 
     used to enter into new contracts with, or new agreements for 
     Federal assistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran except for 
     contracts or agreements that include authority for the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct anytime, 
     anywhere inspections of civil and military sites within the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from Texas and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is similar in nature to the one just offered, and I want 
to ensure that my strong support for the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Program and the good work of the committee to properly 
fund it is, once again, reflected in the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this second amendment to the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill to make clear to Iran and to the world that the 
complete, intrusive inspections of all Iran civil and military sites 
are nonnegotiable and must be part of any deal with Iran.
  My amendment adds this section to the end of the bill: ``None of the 
funds made available in this Act under the heading `Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation' may be made available to enter into new contracts 
with or new agreements for Federal assistance to the Islamic Republic 
of Iran except for contracts or agreements that include authority for 
the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct anytime,

[[Page 6053]]

anywhere inspections of civil and military sites within the Islamic 
Republic of Iran.''
  I was encouraged to see Energy Secretary Moniz, President Obama's 
chief technical expert in the Iran negotiations, quoted as saying: ``We 
expect to have anywhere, anytime access'' to conduct nuclear 
inspections of Iran.
  I share his view that without these full, intrusive inspections there 
is simply no way to fully and truly verify that Iran is complying with 
the terms of any deal they supposedly agree to.
  Unfortunately, the Iranians do not share the views of our Secretary. 
Shortly after the Secretary made these comments to Bloomberg News, 
Iranian Brigadier General Hossein Salami responded by saying:
  ``Not only will we not grant foreigners the permission to inspect our 
military sites, we will not even give them permission to think about 
such a subject. They will not even be permitted to inspect the most 
normal military site in their dreams.''
  Apologists for Iran say that they just need to say these types of 
things, as well as maintain a limited nuclear stockpile, in order to 
save face and preserve their national pride.
  Mr. Chairman, I didn't come here to help the Iranians with their PR 
efforts. Neither did you, and neither did anyone in this body. Our job 
is to keep the American people and the free world safe, and any deal 
with Iran that lifts sanctions but is not coupled with strict 
inspection requirements isn't just not worth the paper it is written 
on; it will make us less safe.
  History can be our guide on this very subject. In one of his biggest 
but least discussed foreign policy failures, President Clinton in 1994 
made a similar ``deal'' with North Korea that was supposed to end their 
nuclear ambitions and bring them into the international community.
  Sanctions were lifted, but we were given nothing but mischief and 
deception by the North Koreans in return. International inspectors were 
obstructed and blocked on a regular basis. North Korea continued to 
develop their nuclear program, only now in the shadows and in hardened, 
underground facilities. In 2006, they successfully detonated a nuclear 
bomb, and they continue to develop and test long-range missiles and to 
threaten their neighbors and the West. Instead of weakening the 
authoritarian regime that controls North Korea, the lifting of the 
sanctions and the development of nuclear weapons allowed the Kims to 
tighten their grip on the country and pass it along to the next 
generation.
  Congress cannot allow President Obama's flawed deal on Iran to take 
us down this same path.
  Once again, if we are going to use DOE resources and taxpayer money 
to help Iran clean up the mess created by their nuclear ambitions, it 
should come with conditions. The most important condition should be 
that they permit the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct the 
anytime, anywhere inspections that are so essential to any nuclear 
reduction agreement.
  History and our own Energy Secretary tell us that this deal won't 
work without robust and full inspections. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
amendment to make sure that those inspections do happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair finds that this amendment includes language 
requiring a new determination as to the meaning of inspections that 
qualify as ``anytime, anywhere.''
  The proponent has failed to fulfill his burden as to the meaning of 
that term.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hudson

  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I call up the Hudson amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Each amount made available by this Act is 
     hereby reduced by 11.1208 percent.
       (b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     amounts under the headings ``National Nuclear Security 
     Administration'', ``Environmental and Other Defense 
     Activities'', or ``Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, this evening, I offer an amendment to the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would cut spending back to 
the fiscal year 2008 level.
  While I appreciate the work of the Appropriations Committee in 
crafting this important bill, I recognize that we should go further to 
cut reckless spending. Washington has a spending problem, and we can't 
afford to kick the can down the road any longer.
  My amendment makes an across-the-board cut of more than 11 percent to 
the bill in order to decrease the amount back to the fiscal year 2008 
level, saving nearly $2 billion for the taxpayers.
  We are over $18 trillion in our national debt. This is merely a drop 
in the bucket, and we owe it to our constituents to cut even more to 
restore fiscal sanity in Washington. Defense accounts are exempt from 
this cut because Congress is expected to take up the National Defense 
Authorization Act in the near future to address those programs.
  Mr. Chairman, when I first ran for Congress, I was repeatedly asked: 
``If you are elected, what programs would you cut?''
  The answer I gave was: ``First, I would go back to 2008 spending 
levels, and then we will start cutting.''
  My amendment does just this. It allows us to return to the point when 
we can finally get serious about paying down our national debt and 
saving future generations from economic disaster. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because it 
is sort of an untargeted proposal, and our budget in many places on 
this bill is very tight. We know the net effect will be to reduce jobs 
and hurt the middle class in a sector where America needs help, and 
that is energy independence and the modernization of our 
infrastructure.
  The result of the amendment will be less investment in water resource 
infrastructure all over this country at a time when global trade is 
increasing. Energy research and development programs, which lead us to 
future energy, not past energy resources, which create good jobs and 
have substantial returns on investment, will be harmed.
  At a time when unemployed Americans lose jobless benefits and when 
many young families struggle just to survive, we should be creating 
jobs and securing the American Dream through investing in our energy 
future, including innovation and investments in the ground in every 
``all of the above'' energy sector we have, not tearing it down. Just 
since 2003, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion in importing 
foreign petroleum. Think about that one.
  This is a vast shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands of jobs 
are connected to energy production from

[[Page 6054]]

our country. This amendment only exacerbates this shift of wealth from 
the American middle class to offshore. It is not something I support, 
and I doubt the gentleman really wants to support that.
  This bill funds critical water resource projects; it supports science 
activities necessary to breakthroughs to lead us to a new energy 
future; and it contributes, importantly, to our national defense 
through vital weapons, naval reactor research, and the nonproliferation 
funding we had been discussing earlier this evening.

                              {time}  2030

  We must make certain decisions to lead our country forward. There are 
a lot more people who live in this country than lived here in 2008 or 
2003. Also, one of the reasons that we have a little bit of uptick in 
some of the accounts is, there are actually more American people now, 
so we have got to do some things in terms of the ports. Our ports silt 
up. We have got to get that out of there in order that we can get 
larger ships into our ports carrying more goods.
  We can't live in the past. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing this amendment. Let's take America to the future and not 
backwards.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in opposition to this 
amendment. This bill that we are currently considering meets the budget 
resolution that was just adopted. We have been cutting discretionary 
spending for the last 4 years, $173 billion, as I understand it, over 
the last 4 years, not in decreases in the increases, but actual 
decreases in spending. This goes way too far and makes sweeping changes 
with broad cuts to the reductions. This is an approach I can't support.
  I am particularly concerned about the impact this amendment would 
have on our critical infrastructure, as mentioned by the gentlewoman 
from Ohio, and the basic research needs that are prioritized in this 
bill. While the gentleman has attempted to exclude national security 
activities, I have got to tell you, in all honesty, national security 
is not the only thing the Federal Government does. We do do other 
things. We maintain our waterways and our ports and other activities. 
This amendment would still have the detrimental impact on the security 
of nuclear materials at the Idaho National Laboratory. These accounts 
are very complex, and reductions to each account must be carefully 
weighed, and that is what this subcommittee has been doing and holding 
hearings on for the last 4 months.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just wanted to say to 
the author of the amendment that I said something to the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means today. I think he took it rather 
lightly, but I said, Here we are discussing our appropriation bills on 
the floor, and I said, We are trying to balance the budget. I said, But 
you know what? Your committee is sitting back; there are no revenues on 
the table, and mandatory spending isn't on the table, and you are 
trying to take it out of the hides of discretionary spending, which is 
such a small part of the entire Federal budget. You know what he did? 
He twirled around and kind of laughed me off and walked toward the back 
of the Chamber. I didn't think that was a very responsible answer.
  So I respect the gentleman being down here tonight, offering his 
amendment. I would encourage you to talk to the head of the Committee 
on Ways and Means because to try to get us to shrink even more than we 
have done in many of our accounts--and, by the way, eleven other 
appropriation bills coming after us that have been asked to do the 
same--really isn't fair to the American people.
  We need all hands on deck, all hands on deck. So I thank the 
gentleman for attempting to be responsible, but I really think you 
ought to look to some of the other committees that are sitting back 
while the burden is on our committee to make these decisions alone. 
That isn't right.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chair?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chair, I acknowledge the fine point the gentlewoman 
made that we can't cut discretionary spending to get ourselves out of 
debt. She makes two valid points: we need more revenue and we need to 
address the mandatory spending side. I agree wholeheartedly. We need 
tax reform to get us more revenue, to get the economy generated, to get 
people back to work, and we also need to look at saving Social Security 
and Medicare, shoring them up for future generations and controlling 
the cost curve. She makes a valid point.
  I also want to acknowledge that Chairman Simpson and the Committee on 
Appropriations have actually made real cuts over the last few years. He 
also makes a valid point that we have actually cut discretionary 
spending in real dollars. I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, we can do 
more. I just believe that if you look at the path we are on, we are 
heading, if we don't spend another dime, toward a horrific debt crisis 
in this country. We just can't afford to sit back and not deal with 
that.
  I believe we do need to work on the mandatory side for sure because 
that is the real driver of our debt. But in the meantime, let's go back 
to pre-stimulus time, let's go back to 2008 spending levels because I 
don't remember the Federal Government starving for money. I don't 
remember the Federal Government just barely being able to function 
because it didn't have enough revenue back in 2008. I think it is 
prudent for us to do that. It is about jobs, it is about the economy, 
it is about our future generation, our children and grandchildren who 
are going to have to actually pay the bills that we are running up 
right now. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to please support 
the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                  amendment no. 7 offered by mr. engel

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Energy, the Department of the 
     Interior, or any other Federal agency to lease or purchase 
     new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet, or for an 
     agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with 
     Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet Performance, dated May 
     24, 2011.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a 
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that required all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternative fuel vehicles, 
such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31 of 
this year.
  My amendment echoes the President's memorandum by prohibiting funds 
in this act from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty 
vehicles unless that purchase is made in accord with the President's 
memorandum.
  I have submitted identical amendments to 15 different appropriations 
bills over the past few years, and every

[[Page 6055]]

time they have been accepted by both the majority and the minority. I 
hope my amendment will receive similar support today.
  Global oil prices are down. We no longer pay $147 per barrel, but 
despite increased production here in the United States, the global 
price of oil is still largely determined by OPEC. Spikes in oil prices 
have profound repercussions for our economy. The primary reason is that 
our cars and trucks run only on petroleum. We can change that with 
alternative technologies that exist today. The Federal Government 
operates the largest fleet of light-duty vehicles in America, over 
635,000 vehicles. More than 50,000 of those vehicles are within the 
jurisdiction of this bill and being used by the Department of Energy, 
the Department of the Interior, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
  When I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they diversified 
their fuel by greatly expanding the use of ethanol. People there can 
drive to a gas station and choose whether to fill their vehicle with 
gasoline or with ethanol. They make their choice based on cost or 
whatever criteria they deem important. I want the same choice for 
American consumers. That is why I am also proposing a bill this 
Congress, as I have done many times in the past, which will provide for 
cars built in America to be able to run on a fuel instead of or in 
addition to gasoline. They do it in Brazil. We can do it here, and it 
would cost less than $100 per car to do so.
  In conclusion, expanding the role these alternative technologies play 
in our transportation economy will help break the leverage that foreign 
government-controlled oil companies hold over Americans. It will 
increase our Nation's domestic security and protect consumers. I am 
delighted that both my Republican and Democratic colleagues have 
unanimously supported this bill for the past several years. I ask that 
my colleagues support the Engel amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) The amount otherwise made available by this 
     Act for ``Department of Energy--Advanced Technology Vehicles 
     Manufacturing Loan Program'' is hereby reduced to $0.
       (b) None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to provide a loan under section 136 of the Energy 
     Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013).

  The Acting 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. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise because too often here at the 
Federal level we find ourselves rewarding or occasionally funding 
corporations that would do what they do irregardless of what we did at 
the Federal level. It has been a point of contention with Democratic 
colleagues. Too often we continue to pay for programs that have 
outlived their original purpose. I think that too often we find 
ourselves looking the other way at programs that don't work and/or have 
wasted tens upon tens of millions of dollars.
  It is for those different reasons that I rise to offer this 
amendment, which would indeed defund the Department of Energy's failed 
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Quite simply, it 
would just do two things: one, it would eliminate the $6 million in 
funding that would go to this program, and, two, it would prevent any 
further lending from this program's unused lending capacity.
  The reason I think doing those two things are awfully important is, 
one, this is, indeed, a case of paying corporations to do what they 
would already do. Again, this has been a point in the budget debate 
that we had earlier today from both Republican and Democratic 
colleagues alike, saying we shouldn't be paying corporations to do 
things they would already do. Two, this is, indeed, a stimulus era 
program. However well intended in 2009, it has outlived its purpose, 
and we are not in the economic situation that we found ourselves in 
2009. In fact, this program's authority expired back in 2012, and I 
think it is a recognition by this Congress of the fact that maybe some 
of the program hasn't been working so well as to why that has indeed 
occurred.
  Finally, this program has seen real losses; 40 percent of its loans 
have gone bad. According to a GAO report, they actually wrote up some 
of those losses. What I might do is just share for one moment with my 
colleagues, as part of a government reform look at this program, there 
was a letter to then Secretary Chu February 28, 2012, from one of the 
applicants. In it he quotes the chairman of a Fortune 10 company--not 
100, but Fortune 10 company, and this is in the reference to the 
letter--told your former deputy, Jonathan Silver, that this program 
lacked integrity. That is, it did not have a consistent process and 
rules against which private enterprises could rationally evaluate their 
chances and intelligently allocate time and resources against that 
process.
  There can be no greater failing of government than to not have 
integrity when dealing with its taxpaying citizens. For a variety of 
reasons, I offer this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I want 
to share a story. I was out at one of our energy labs in California and 
walked into a research lab, a Cummins engine was up on the boards. I 
said, What is going on in here? The answer was, We are trying to 
understand the science of combustion. I said, You mean it is 2014, and 
we don't understand that yet? They said, No, Congresswoman, we really 
don't know what happens inside an internal combustion chamber. They 
were studying what happens when fuel ignites inside that chamber so 
they could make it more energy efficient. I was surprised to learn that 
every single automotive company in this country depends on the results 
of that research, and Cummins is in the lead.
  I want to say to the gentleman, I come from automotive America. When 
the industry fell to its knees in 2008 because we have never had a 
trade policy that opens closed markets like Japan and Korea and China, 
I thought to myself, I never thought I would live to see this day. 
After the wise decision of a majority of this Congress and the Obama 
administration, we lifted the automotive industry of this country out 
of the dregs.
  I have watched it recover with vehicles like the Cruze and with the 
Wrangler, which is leading the list. When I look at what Ford is doing 
in terms of its EcoBoost engine, I see an industry being reborn in our 
Nation. The economic growth that comes with it, the incredible muscle 
that it provides inside the spine of this economy--not tangential 
growth, but real wealth, real wealth being created, again, across this 
country in this very important industry--I wouldn't do anything at this 
point in American history with the closed markets we are facing abroad 
not to support advanced technology in this country.
  What we are competing against in other places are countries 
disguising themselves as companies, and they are able to subsidize 
their industry, close their markets, and prevent even our parts going 
into their original equipment. We can succeed most importantly by 
advancing automotive technology, advanced vehicle technology.

                              {time}  2045

  This particular program allows the component suppliers, as well as 
the original equipment, to benefit. I can tell you, though, the 
companies do research themselves; they don't do the kind of basic 
research that is necessary to provide the incredible breakthroughs that 
can come through the Department of Energy.
  If I said to you 25 years ago, ``Would you believe that 10 percent of 
gasoline

[[Page 6056]]

blends are ethanol and renewable fuels,'' you would probably say, 
``Congresswoman, you have been staying up too late too many nights of 
the week.''
  In fact, it has happened. Now, we are going to move to a 15 percent 
renewable blend. Who would have thought that would be possible? Who 
would have thought we could get 40-mile-a-gallon vehicles on the road? 
We are moving toward that now, flexible fuel. That is not by accident. 
This program supports just what it says, advanced technology vehicles 
manufacturing.
  Given concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues regarding 
appropriate oversight of these programs, I think the net effect of your 
amendment is going to be to eliminate oversight of this program, which 
I don't think we want to do. I think we want to make it work for 
America's sake.
  I oppose your amendment, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I also have to oppose this amendment. While I appreciate 
the gentleman's position on the ATVM program, the elimination would 
hurt Federal oversight of the program of more than $8 billion in loans 
already given. The committee recommendations include the $6 million as 
a reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to the existing 
loan portfolio and no more.
  I don't think the gentleman wants to actually eliminate the oversight 
of the loans that are out there that are going to be running for the 
next 30 years.
  I must oppose the gentleman's amendment in order to ensure that there 
is proper oversight of taxpayer funding.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman very much, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SANFORD. I thank both of my colleagues for their counterpoints, 
and I understand absolutely this notion of competitiveness. I agree 
with Thomas Friedman, the world is flat; and we are in a global 
competition for jobs, capital, and way of life.
  Look at, again, the fundamentals of this program. I have here a GAO--
Government Accountability Office--report that says the cost of 
participating in this program outweighs the benefits to companies. That 
is a GAO report, not a private sector report, not a rightwing report.
  I think it is also interesting, in pulling this letter that was, 
again, written by a supplicant to the agency itself, said that the due 
diligence process in their attempt--and they ultimately quit--but their 
attempt to get a loan was more than 1,175 days. His point in this 
letter was that that was more than tenuous and, frankly, had much to do 
with their ultimately ceasing and desisting.
  I would also make this point: they have only made five loans. If we 
were depending on these five loans for innovation in new technology in 
the way that internal combustion engines work or the way that we burn 
fossil fuel, we are in real trouble, but five loans is what we are 
talking about.
  I would also make this point: I think, at some point, given the 
scarcity of resources that we do deal with in Washington, D.C., we have 
to at some level make a divide between big companies. Ford's market cap 
is $63 billion. Alcoa's is $16 billion.
  Would not these funds be better used going to small innovators, as 
opposed to these large, multinational corporations that I think, in 
many cases, are the beneficiary of corporate largesse, but corporate 
largesse that I don't think serves the taxpayer well or, according to 
these industry analysts, the industry as well?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cleaver

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  During fiscal year 2016, the limitation relating 
     to total project costs in section 902 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall not apply with 
     respect to any project that receives funds made available by 
     title I of this Act.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from Missouri and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would waive the limit on 
total costs for Army Corps projects which are set forth in section 902 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
  The law states that a project cannot be funded by more than 20 
percent of the project's total authorized cost. This amendment would 
waive that limitation for any project that receives funds made 
available by title I of this act.
  Thirty or so years have passed since Congress originally authorized 
many of the current Federal flood control projects. Unfortunately, the 
large backlog of projects, incremental funding by Congress, and 
unforeseen circumstances has resulted in costly delays for projects 
across this country, pushing many over the now outdated authorized 
limits. Many of these projects are so close to the finish line, and 
this language could help them cross it.
  Mr. Chairman, this language is vital to the continuation of valued 
flood control projects in my congressional district. The Dodson 
Industrial District project in Kansas City, Missouri, has completed its 
first three phases. However, without an increase in its authorized 
total cost, the project cannot move forward on the final phase.
  Currently, the area has a floodwall unconnected to the rest of the 
project and investments of $250 million at risk. If the project could 
be fully funded at the increased total amount, it could be completed in 
fiscal year 2017.
  Projects that have reached their 902 limit can apply for a project 
cost modification. However, the application and review process 
routinely takes several years to get approval from the Army Corps 
headquarters. These valued projects, in which the Federal Government 
has already invested millions of dollars, are languishing for 2, 3, or 
more years during that review process.
  Another control project in Kansas City, called Turkey Creek Basin, 
has over $200 million in investment protected by this project, 
including a major interstate highway. It was authorized in 1999 and is 
ready for the final phase, but did not receive Federal funding last 
year or in this year's budget request because of a pending cost 
modification application, which began in 2013.
  Mr. Chairman, just in my district, there are three flood control 
projects that have pending cost modification applications that were 
started in 2013. I can only surmise that this trend has continued in 
just about every other congressional district in the country.
  Mr. Chairman, these are not exotic projects. These are projects which 
will help generate the businesses in those areas to a point where they 
can begin to grow.
  I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
attention to this matter. With some assurances that the committee will 
try to address this issue as the bill moves into conference process, I 
would consider withdrawing the amendment at any time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 6057]]




                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment explicitly supersedes existing 
law by waiving section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 with respect to certain projects covered by the bill.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    amendment offered by mr. burgess

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
actually maintains current law.
  Since its passage in 2007, I have heard from tens of thousands of 
constituents about how the language in the 2007 Energy Independence and 
Security Act will take away consumer choice when deciding what 
lightbulb to use in your home. In fact, they are right.
  While the government has passed energy efficiency standards in other 
realms over the years, they have never jumped so far and lowered 
standards so drastically. It is to a point where technology is still 
years away from making lightbulbs that are compliant with the law at a 
price point that the average American can afford.
  Opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language does not 
ban the incandescent bulb. That is true. It bans the sales of the 100-
watt, the 60-watt, and the 45-watt bulbs. The replacement bulbs are far 
from economically efficient, even if they are energy efficient. A 
family living paycheck to paycheck can't afford to replace every bulb 
in their house at even $5 a bulb.
  The economics of the lightbulb mandate are only part of the story. 
With the extreme expansion of Federal powers undertaken by President 
Obama and the Democrats in Congress during the first 2 years of the 
Obama administration, Americans have woken up to just how far the 
Constitution's Commerce Clause has been manipulated from its original 
intent. The lightbulb mandate is a perfect example of this.
  The Commerce Clause was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a 
limitation on Federal authority, not a catchall nod to allow for any 
topic to be regulated by Washington; indeed, it is clear that the 
Founding Fathers never intended this clause to be used to allow the 
Federal Government to regulate and pass mandates on consumer products 
that do not pose a risk to human health or safety.
  This Congress must be on the side of consumers and consumer choice. 
If new, energy-efficient lightbulbs save money and are better for the 
environment, we should trust the American people to make that choice on 
their own and move to these bulbs. We should not be forcing these 
lightbulbs on the American public.
  The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business taking away 
the freedom of Americans to choose what bulb to put in their homes. I 
will add that, recently, the lightbulb manufacturers in this country 
have claimed that, because of the stopgap provision in the 2007 law, if 
we continue to prevent the Department of Energy from promulgating rules 
pursuant to these provisions, the manufacturers will be forced to stop 
manufacturing compliant incandescent bulbs.
  This is actually an argument to repeal the 2007 language in its 
entirety, not to allow it to be implemented. We should not allow a 
stopgap trigger in the law to extort us into passing bad policy and 
moving forward.
  This exact amendment has been accepted for the past 3 years by a 
voice vote and has been included in the annual appropriations 
legislation signed into law by the President each year since its first 
inclusion. It allows consumers to continue to have a choice and to have 
a say about what they will put in their homes. It is common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I should add that I have had conversations with my good 
friend, Mr. Jordan from Ohio, on this amendment. I understand that 
there have been discussions about changes to the language in order to 
balance both the philosophical belief that this is the wrong policy for 
our country and the pragmatic belief that we should do no harm to the 
livelihoods of our constituents.
  I continue to offer, as I did last July, to sit down with Mr. Jordan 
or anyone else to see if compromise language can be achieved prior to 
the end of the fiscal year, but in the meantime, I offer this amendment 
to the body.
  Mr. BARTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. I 
think it is absolutely the right thing to do. It is pure common sense.
  As you know, these newer bulbs, while they may be more energy 
efficient, they are much more expensive. I have yet to see one that 
costs less than $3 or $4. The incandescent bulbs--when you can find 
them--you can get four for $2.50 or something like that.
  This is a commonsense approach to let the consumer choose. Certainly, 
for lower-income Americans that don't have the ability to buy the more 
expensive bulbs, it makes a lot of economic sense.
  I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  2100

  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I strongly oppose this damaging rider by my good friend, 
Congressman Burgess of Texas, because it would block the Department of 
Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency 
standards for lightbulbs. This rider was a bad idea when it was first 
offered 4 years ago, and it is even more unsupportable now.
  Every claim made by proponents of this rider has been proven wrong. 
Dr. Burgess told us that the energy efficiency standards would ban 
incandescent lightbulbs, but that simply is false. You can go to the 
store today and see shelves of modern, energy-efficient incandescent 
lightbulbs that meet the standard. They are the same as the old bulbs, 
except that they last longer, use less electricity, and save consumers 
money.
  We have heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict 
consumer choice. But if you have shopped for lightbulbs lately, which I 
have, you know that isn't true either. Modern incandescent bulbs, 
compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and LEDs of every shape, size, and 
color are now available. Consumers never had more choice.

[[Page 6058]]

  The efficiency standards spurred innovation that dramatically 
expanded options for consumers. Critics of the efficiency standards 
claimed that they would cost consumers money. In fact, the opposite is 
true. When the standards are in full effect, the average American 
family will save about $100 every year. That is $13 billion in savings 
nationwide every year. But this rider threatens those savings, and that 
is why consumer groups have consistently opposed this rider.
  Here is the reality. The 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards 
for lightbulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to 
enjoy overwhelming industry support. U.S. manufacturers are already 
meeting the efficiency standards.
  The effect of the rider is to allow foreign manufacturers to sell 
old, inefficient lightbulbs in the United States that violate the 
efficiency standards. This is unfair to domestic producers who have 
invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make efficient bulbs 
that meet the standards.
  Why on Earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign 
manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalize U.S. manufacturers who 
are following our laws?
  But it even gets worse. The rider now poses an additional threat to 
U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 energy bill required the 
Department of Energy to establish updated lightbulb efficiency 
standards by January 1, 2017. It also provided that if final updated 
standards are not issued by then, a more stringent standard of 45 
lumens per watt automatically takes effect. Incandescent lightbulbs 
currently cannot meet this backstop standard.
  This rider blocks the Department of Energy from issuing the required 
efficiency standards and ensures that the backstop will kick in. 
Ironically, it is this rider that could effectively ban the 
incandescent lightbulb.
  The Burgess rider directly threatens existing lightbulb manufacturing 
jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois, to name but three. It would 
stifle innovation and punish companies that have invested in domestic 
manufacturing. This rider aims to reverse years of technological 
progress, only to kill jobs, increase electricity bills for our 
constituents, and worsen pollution.
  It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology. It is time to 
listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency 
advocates who all agree this rider is harmful. I urge all Members to 
vote ``no'' on the Burgess lightbulb rider.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I would just observe, at the end of 
calendar year 2007, the commentator George Will observed the United 
States Congress had two jobs: deliver the mail and defend the border. 
It had done neither. But what it had done was ban the incandescent 
bulb, perhaps the greatest invention ever invented by an American 
inventor.
  This is a commonsense amendment. It deserves passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Dent

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Energy to finalize, implement, 
     or enforce the proposed rule entitled ``Standards Ceiling 
     Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and identified by 
     regulation identification number 1904-AC87.

  The Acting 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. DENT. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to stop 
overbearing Department of Energy regulations from driving up the cost 
of ceiling fans and increasing energy consumption as a result. I offer 
this amendment, along with my colleagues Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee 
and Mr. Rokita of Indiana, both of whom have been very engaged on this 
issue.
  The Department of Energy is currently considering a proposed rule, 
entitled, ``Standard Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits,'' which 
would impose increased efficiency requirements for ceiling fans sold in 
the United States. This regulation, if implemented, would have the 
effect of increasing the cost of ceiling fans, in some cases by nearly 
double, thereby reducing the purchase and use of ceiling fans by 
American consumers. The end result, ironically, would be heavier 
reliance on central air-conditioning and, thus, increased energy 
consumption.
  Ceiling fans, by their nature, are already an extremely energy-
efficient method of cooling a home or a business, using between 20 and 
100 watts during operation, compared with a central A/C unit which 
typically uses between 3,500 and 5,000 watts. That is an order of 
magnitude less energy, which can save a household up to 14 percent on 
cooling costs.
  The Department of Energy's proposed standard is regulatory solution 
in search of a problem.
  Now, the ceiling fan industry has already demonstrated a strong 
commitment to energy efficiency, as evidenced by the dramatic increase 
in ENERGY STAR certified ceiling fans on the market over the past 
decade. The industry continues to develop energy-saving innovations, 
such as a redesigned motor, which uses up to 70 percent less 
electricity than the traditional ceiling fan motor. This has all taken 
place absent the heavy hand of government regulation.
  At a time when homeowners across the United States are trying to 
reduce energy usage and cost, we should not increase the price of 
ceiling fans by setting unrealistic and unnecessary efficiency 
requirements on an already efficient product. Ceiling fans can help 
reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and ease the strain on our 
national power grid during the time of year when it is most heavily 
taxed.
  Madam Chairman, I would simply state that ceiling fans are an 
inexpensive, easy way to reduce cooling costs, and the Federal 
Government should avoid taking actions that will stifle innovation and, 
ultimately, drive consumers to less efficient methods of cooling their 
home and business.
  I would urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment 
to stop this burdensome government regulation, and encourage reduced 
energy consumption through increased efficiency.
  Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Dent and Mr. 
Rokita for their work on this issue.
  The Department of Energy is so determined to redesign the ceiling fan 
that they have released a 101-page rulemaking framework document which 
evaluates the potential energy savings of their new regulations.
  Well, what we have found is that, just like stretching their 
tentacles into lightbulbs and so many other areas of our home, what 
they are doing is pricing people out of the ceiling fan market. These 
new regulations would significantly impair the ability of ceiling fan 
manufacturers like Hunter Fans in Memphis, Tennessee, to produce 
reasonably priced, highly decorative fans.
  The regulations will not only place a higher price tag on the less-
pleasing designs, but could increase homeowners' reliance on cooling 
systems that are less energy efficient.
  What we are seeing is, with ceiling fans, that many of our 
constituents save as much as 14 percent on their energy use to cool 
their home, and they can save homeowners as much as 40

[[Page 6059]]

percent of their air-conditioning bills by creating a breeze that makes 
the room feel a little bit cooler. New regulations will curb increased 
consumer trends in the marketplace, which currently include placing 
ceiling fans in laundry rooms, closets, and master bathrooms.
  I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her 
continued work on this matter.
  Frankly, as I look around the room tonight, I think it is kind of 
ridiculous that we are sitting here talking, standing here talking 
about ceiling fans. This is what it has come to.
  The bureaucracy in this town is now telling the American people that 
they know what belongs on their ceiling more than those people do. It 
is government run amok. It is an example of the complete disregard 
bureaucrats have for the practical implications of the regulations they 
issue.
  The Department of Energy, as is stated, contends that a certain 
amount of energy would be saved by requiring greater efficiency from 
ceiling fans, completely disregarding the fact that if you price people 
out of this market, as the gentlewoman from Tennessee said, they are 
going to have to buy cooling systems that are even more expensive, buy 
fans that are even more expensive.
  Let's get out of this business. We have more important things to do 
than worrying about bureaucrats and what they decide people need on 
their ceilings. Let's remember, this amendment was adopted in 2014 on 
the floor, and it was in the base text of the 2015 bill.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, given it 
is a solution in search of a problem.
  Since their implementation, standards for ceiling fans and ceiling 
fan light kits have saved American consumers--are you ready?--$4.5 
billion--billion--in energy costs, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 
22 metric tons.
  Nearly a decade ago--why do we have this system? Because three 
States--California, Maryland, and New York--created their own unique 
standards for ceiling fan test procedures and performance, and these 
varying requirements created difficulties for manufacturers marketing 
products across all 50 States.
  In response, the fan manufacturing industry asked the Federal 
Government for a national standard that would reduce unnecessary 
complexity. Since that time, the DOE, Department of Energy, has not 
even proposed a new rule on ceiling fans, so it is premature to react 
to what might be in a new rule. Even if a new rule is proposed, 
implementation is years away.
  The Department's analysis so far has shown that options exist for 
increasing ceiling fan efficiency that are cost-effective for 
manufacturers and the consumers. Any upgrades will enable consumers to 
save money by saving energy, also moving our country closer to its low-
carbon future.
  Given the proposed rule has yet to be released, industry cannot 
anticipate how much their manufacturing costs might increase, whether 
their business model would be turned upside down, or whether the rule 
would result in energy growth. Industry has not substantiated any of 
their claims.
  The Department of Energy has conducted extensive consultation with 
industry stakeholders, including the companies themselves, and any 
potential indirect effects on air-conditioning units.
  The amendment ensures that consumers will be stuck with less 
efficient fans and higher energy costs. I can't see why we would want 
to do that.
  Let's help this industry. As I have stated, I object to the amendment 
as proposed and urge a ``no'' vote by my colleagues.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2115

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


                  Amendment Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 2101 of the Water 
     Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
     2238b) or section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the DeFazio-
Poe-Napolitano amendment.
  I sincerely thank Ranking Member DeFazio and, of course, the ranking 
member of the committee for offering this critical amendment which 
implements the harbor maintenance allocation formulas that were 
carefully negotiated and included in the WRRDA 2014 and passed the 
House by a vote of 412-4. I repeat, 412-4.
  WRRDA '14 said that any funds appropriated for the harbor maintenance 
account above $898 million--of course this was the baseline amount 
appropriated in fiscal year '12--should be--it doesn't say ``would 
be,'' ``could be''--it should be allocated based on the following 
parameters:
  Ten percent at least goes to the Great Lakes. At least 10 percent 
goes to expanded uses at donor ports, which would be New York/New 
Jersey, Miami, Seattle, Tacoma, Los Angeles, and Long Beach. Expanded 
uses are berth dredging, removal of contaminated sediment, 
environmental remediation, and/or subsidies to shippers to continue to 
use their ports. At least 5 percent goes to underserved harbors. Ten 
percent goes for emerging harbors.
  The 2016 Corps budget does not--I repeat, does not--include the WRRDA 
2014 harbor maintenance trust allocations. It does not include them.
  This amendment is needed to require the Corps to implement these 
funds allocations, as directed by Congress.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment is especially important to provide 
fairness to my State of California and to other ports.
  All ports in California only receive 15 percent--this is all ports--
back of what their shippers paid into that harbor maintenance trust 
fund.
  Last year, the users of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone 
paid $263 million in harbor maintenance taxes and received zero--I 
repeat, zero--back in harbor maintenance funds. This is terribly 
unfair, and it is, as far as we are concerned, illegal.
  This amendment will ensure that it brings back a little bit of that 
fairness to the donor harbors by providing them with a small portion of 
what they paid into the system.
  I do want to add that this amendment is supported by the American 
Association of Port Authorities and the ports of Los Angeles and Long 
Beach.
  I ask for support of the DeFazio amendment. I request a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stivers

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Cape Wind

[[Page 6060]]

     Energy Project on the Outer Continental Shelf off 
     Massachusetts, Nantucket Sound.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STIVERS. Madam Chair, the amendment I am offering tonight is 
simple. It prohibits funding for the Cape Wind project off Nantucket 
Sound. This amendment was offered last year and was accepted 
unanimously, and I hope it will be again.
  The problem with this project isn't that it is renewable energy. We 
all support renewable energy. This is a renewable energy that is not 
supporting American jobs. In fact, they have outsourced their turbines 
to Denmark and their turbine platforms to Germany.
  The other issue is, this project has been quite controversial, and I 
think that we don't want another Solyndra.
  This amendment was adopted last year by a voice vote. I would urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Newhouse). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Foxx) having assumed the chair, Mr. Newhouse, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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.

                          ____________________