[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7369-7411]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 
5055, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 743 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. 5055.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1849


                     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. 5055) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2017, 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, 
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) had 
been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 80, line 12.


  Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch) be withdrawn to the end that the Chair put the question de 
novo.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Pittenger

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to revoke funding previously awarded to or within the 
     State of North Carolina.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of this 
very critical amendment. The objective of this amendment is to prohibit 
the President of the United States from restricting funds to go to 
North Carolina.
  The President's emissaries have stated through the Department of 
Transportation, Department of Education, Department of Justice, 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and, yes, through Valerie 
Jarrett and through his press secretary, Josh Earnest, that funds 
should not be dispensed to North Carolina until North Carolina is 
coerced into complying with the legal beliefs of the President and his 
political views.
  We believe that this is an egregious abuse of executive power and 
that the State of North Carolina should not be required to comply with 
the President's wishes. The President is not a monarch; he is not a 
dictator; he doesn't issue fiats. We are a constitutional divided 
government.
  This amendment I am offering today stops the President from bullying 
States, stops the President from bullying North Carolina. What he seeks 
to do in North Carolina, he has sought to do around the country. He has 
sent letters to the Departments of Education in every State giving them 
guidelines. Already 11 States in the country have sued the Federal 
Government over the abuse of these egregious powers.
  This is not a fight about a city ordinance with wording that was 
poorly edited or about a legislature. This is about a constitutional 
divided government. To that end, I would submit to our colleagues in 
the House of Representatives that it is critical that we address this 
and we rein in this President, who has time and again used his 
authority and abused his power; that we must submit to the President 
and to the will of the people that we are a country of the people, by 
the people, and for the people, and this is a constitutionally divided 
government.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Walker).
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this amendment. 
President Obama and his administration are threatening to remove 
Federal funding to North Carolina's educators, law enforcement, and 
critical infrastructure as punishment for its passage of the Public 
Facilities Privacy & Security Act. This is despite the fact that this 
administration's lawsuit against North Carolina is still pending and 
unresolved. Simply put, our courts have not yet found North Carolina in 
violation of the law.
  To punish or to threaten to punish North Carolina before our courts 
have properly ruled on the case violates our Constitution. It is for 
our courts, not President Obama, to adjudicate whether someone has 
violated the law.
  Further, our Nation was founded on the strength of diverse values. 
During this time of heated rhetoric, we must focus on maintaining a 
civil society where the government does not punish people for what they 
believe, but allows an open discourse to all where all are free to 
follow their beliefs.
  This is why this amendment is necessary--to protect North Carolinians 
from President Obama's executive overreach and maintain our 
constitutional system.
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I submit to my colleagues in the House 
of Representatives that now is the time that we must stand. We cannot 
allow the President of the United States to continue to bully. We must 
wait on the adjudication by this court action with the Department of 
Justice. We must wait and allow the people to decide and make these 
determinations through its constitutionally divided government.
  I thank my colleagues, and I thank Mr. Simpson for his leadership on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 7370]]




                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the Members that the 
following amendment is the one that we are debating: ``None of the 
funds made available by this act may be used to revoke funding 
previously awarded to or within the State of North Carolina.''
  Is this the amendment that the gentleman is offering?
  The Acting CHAIR. Amendment No. 34, as printed in the Congressional 
Record, is pending.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Okay. I thank the Chair so very much. In such case, I 
claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment which ties the hands of several departments--certainly the 
Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of 
Reclamation, all of our independent agencies that are contained in the 
bill, like Denali and Northern Border--from making responsible 
financial decisions and basic oversight of Federal dollars going into 
North Carolina.
  I find it interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle support this amendment, as they normally are such strong 
supporters of fiscal responsibility and government accountability and 
fiscal oversight. Prohibiting the Federal Government from being able to 
withhold or revoke funding in a particular State would abandon that 
principle.
  How do we know that contractors are meeting their obligations? How do 
we know that criminal activity is not occurring inside the State of 
North Carolina related to Federal expenditures in that State?
  If this amendment were accepted, the Department of Energy, the Army 
Corps of Engineers--these are huge contracting departments--would be 
prohibited from conducting investigations of performance issues related 
to contracts or financial assistance awards. The departments could not 
terminate financial assistance agreements for material noncompliance.
  I don't think that the gentleman wishes to promote irresponsibility, 
but I think that is what his amendment actually does. If an award 
winner wanted to terminate their relationship with one of the 
departments or agencies under our bill for whatever reason, the Federal 
Government could not accept that termination. This throws a wrench into 
every Federal project inside of your State. I don't think the gentleman 
really wants to do that.
  If an organization which receives funding, for example, from the 
Department of Energy commits fraud, the Department of Energy has no 
recourse. They can't report on the performance of the organization 
because it could prevent them from winning future awards.
  I can think of no greater irresponsible or unjust system than 
building on restrictions that deny the American people a proper 
functioning oversight by the Federal Government, including the 
literally billions of dollars that go into the State of North Carolina. 
Those don't only come from our committee or our subcommittee, but they 
are significant.
  I must oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I actually support this amendment, and I don't think it was as 
drastic as was just characterized by the ranking member. The fact is 
you can still have oversight; you can still do what is necessary to 
make sure that contractors at various sites are doing their job; it 
doesn't mean that you just have to pay them no matter what.
  The reality is that this administration, as we all know, is using its 
pen and phone to execute executive orders, and they are punishing the 
State of North Carolina because they don't like something that North 
Carolina did. It is in a court. And the Federal Government should not 
have the ability to come in and prejudge the outcome of that 
determination by the court by withholding funds from the State of North 
Carolina simply because it doesn't like what North Carolina did.
  So this is a good amendment, and I compliment the gentleman for 
bringing it forward.
  We have got numerous provisions in this bill to stop the 
administration and their efforts to impose policies without regard to 
current law or the support of the Congress. I compliment the gentleman.
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I submit this is a good amendment. I do 
believe that what we do with this amendment is prevent the egregious 
abuse of power by our President and allow the adjudication of this 
process to be completed by the Justice Department.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Loudermilk). The gentleman will avoid 
inappropriate references to the President.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining, 
please?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I hate to disagree with the chairman of our 
subcommittee. But let me just say that the amendment actually reads: 
``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to revoke 
funding previously awarded.''
  ``None of the funds.'' That means there can be no oversight. If 
criminal activity is occurring, none of the funds may be used to revoke 
funding previously awarded.
  What kind of an amendment is this? This is a very irresponsible 
amendment, and it shouldn't be on this bill. If the gentleman has got 
some problem down there he wants to solve, we will be happy to work 
with him on that one. But I think to tie the hands of our government in 
making sure that every taxpayer dollar is properly managed and has 
oversight is really wrongheaded.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pittenger 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, 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. Pittenger).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. 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 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:

       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 Bureau of Reclamation to issue a permit for 
     California WaterFix or, with respect to California WaterFix, 
     to provide for compliance under section 102 of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) or section 
     7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, 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 yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  About an hour ago, this House of Representatives kicked off a new 
quarter in the ongoing California water war. This House passed a piece 
of legislation that will ultimately gut the Endangered Species Act; the 
Clean Water Act; the biological opinions protecting salmon and smelt; 
the health of the largest estuary on the West Coast of

[[Page 7371]]

the Western Hemisphere, the San Francisco Bay; and salmon up and down 
the Pacific Coast.
  This amendment is designed to stop the ultimate threat to the 
California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay. The 
ultimate threat is the twin tunnels that are being proposed by the 
Brown administration, tunnels that are sized at 15,000-cubic-feet-per-
second capacity, tunnels that have the capability to take half or take 
all of the water out of the Sacramento River.
  Six months of the year, the Sacramento River flows somewhere between 
12,000 and 18,000 cubic feet per second. These tunnels, if ever built, 
will be capable of literally sucking the Sacramento River dry and 
destroying the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western 
Hemisphere.
  This amendment is designed to protect the delta by denying the State 
of California the opportunity to use the Federal Government to build 
such a destructive system. We don't need that system.
  There are solutions to the delta problem. There are solutions that 
are capable of addressing the water issues of California. They have 
been proposed for many, many years. But this particular proposal that 
has been on the books for, now, nearly half a decade is the ultimate 
vampire ditch that will suck the Sacramento River dry and destroy the 
largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It is not 
needed. It is, at a minimum, a $15 billion boondoggle that will not 
create 1 gallon of new water. It will only destroy. It will be the 
ultimate death.
  Some day, what was proved here in the House of Representatives not 
more than an hour ago, some day the votes will be there both in the 
House of Representatives and in the Senate and a bill will be sent to 
the President that will not be able to be vetoed. We will see the death 
of the largest estuary, the most important estuary on the West Coast of 
the Western Hemisphere from Alaska to Chile. There is no other place 
like this.
  The solutions are known. They have been proposed. They have been out 
there. Build the infrastructure.
  I have introduced a bill that would provide the Federal Government to 
work with the State government, in proposition 1 at the State level, to 
bring into harmony reservoirs, underground aquifers, conservation, 
recycling, desalinization, community water supplies.
  It is in the legislation. It is available to us today. All of that, 
without destroying the delta and also operating it in such a manner 
that we let science determine what to do--not legislation, not 
legislation here, not the desire of the Governor of California, but, 
rather, science.
  Where are the fish? Are they going to be harmed? Ramp the pumps down. 
If they are not going to be harmed, then turn the pumps on--very 
simple. But the solution that passed the House today doesn't do that. 
Oh, it gives some bypassing words to the Endangered Species Act, to the 
biological opinions. But, in reality, what it does, it says turn the 
dam pumps on anyway. Let them rip. Let them destroy the delta.
  This bill speaks to the second threat to the delta--not the 
legislation that was passed today, but the issue that is before the 
California voters in November, the issue that is before the California 
Legislature and others today--and that issue is: Should the tunnels be 
built?
  The tunnels must never be built. They must never be built because 
they are the ultimate existential threat to the delta. With their size, 
15,000 cubic feet per second, they are perfectly capable of taking all 
of the water out of the Sacramento River half of the year. Don't ever 
build something that is so destructive.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I really wish on this floor that there was 
a requirement that we had to tell the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is being offered here, there is a 
huge exaggeration that is going on now. There were periods this past 
year alone, just in the last few months, that there were 150,000 cubic 
feet per second flowing through that delta.
  Now, these tunnels, I do not believe are the ultimate solution for 
the delta and for the valley, but I do believe that taking more options 
off the table and an option that, actually, the Governor of 
California--a close friend of the person that offered this amendment--
does support, and making sure that we have an honest debate as we go 
forward to solve the problems of the delta, that we have to have all 
options on the table.
  I have looked for every opportunity to have an honest dialogue across 
the aisle. We have had those conversations. Those who were in the room 
with us walked away and told the press they never existed or were never 
a part of them. Now they are coming back and asking for those same 
private conversations again, and we are not going to play that game 
anymore. We want to make sure we have an honest dialogue.
  In conference, as this bill moves forward and as long as language is 
there, we have the opportunity to have that dialogue and keep those 
options on the table that the Governor of California actually supports. 
Anybody who supports this amendment is actually closing more 
opportunities for us to have that open dialogue, so I rise in 
opposition to this.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert), the chairman.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, here we go. This last winter, as the 
gentleman pointed out, actually upwards of 200,000 cubic feet per 
second were moving through the delta. On days like that, we were 
pumping 2,300 cubic feet per second at the pumps.
  Now, the Governor believes--and many believe--that the solution, 
because they were afraid it was going to reverse flow, the delta, when 
200,000 cubic feet are moving through the delta, is to build these 
tunnels. And now, if these tunnels are built, we are saying we are 
going to suck dry the Sacramento River. Come on. That couldn't happen. 
We can't even pump up to the biological opinion.
  We are not talking about eviscerating the Endangered Species Act. We 
are talking about pumping water up to the biological opinion of 5,000 
cubic feet per second. We all know that those pumps are capable of 
pumping up to 11,000 cubic feet per second. They couldn't even pump 
15,000 cubic feet per second, because they can only go up to 11,000 
cubic feet.
  Saying that, this is a solution that is on the table. It has been 
thought out. It costs a lot of money. I know there are some questions 
that have to be answered. But the solution that the gentleman keeps 
bringing up is a solution that nobody can agree to.
  So we are doing the best we can in the majority to make sure that we 
have water for the people in the Central Valley--and, by the way, for 
southern California, where our economy is suffering because of this; 
certainly, the Central Valley is suffering because of this--and to come 
up with solutions that can work.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, again, I have to rise in opposition to 
this. I think we have to have an open dialogue on water legislation 
going forward, and it obviously needs to be transparent and open for 
the world to see.
  We have tried working quietly with some folks and, obviously, that 
didn't produce anything. This is the next best option: having that 
option to have an open dialogue with all options on the table. We 
already have the option that is being performed today, where my 
district is suffering, unemployment is through the roof, and people are 
truly suffering, and that needs to be fixed.
  We are asking for a simple solution to this. Legislation has been 
introduced. It has been part of a couple pieces of legislation now. I 
think it is a

[[Page 7372]]

very reasonable request, and I strongly recommend a ``no'' on 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 amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1815


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or 
     guidance that references or relies on the analysis contained 
     in--
       (1) ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for 
     Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'', 
     published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
     Carbon, United States Government, in February 2010;
       (2) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in 
     May 2013 and revised in November 2013; or
       (3) ``Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and 
     Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 
     Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews'', published by the 
     Council on Environmental Quality on December 24, 2014 (79 
     Fed. Reg. 77801).

  Mr. GOSAR (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense 
amendment that will protect American jobs and our economy by 
prohibiting funds from being used to implement the Obama 
administration's flawed social cost of carbon valuation.
  This job killing and unlawful guidance sneakily attempts to pave the 
way for cap-and-trade-like mandates. Congress and the American people 
have repeatedly rejected cap-and-trade proposals.
  Knowing that he can't lawfully enact a carbon tax plan, President 
Obama is attempting to circumvent Congress by playing loose and fast 
with the Clean Air Act and unilaterally implementing this unlawful new 
requirement under the guise of guidance.
  The committee was wise to raise concern about the administration's 
abuse of the social cost of carbon valuation in the report. My 
amendment explicitly prohibits funds from being used to implement this 
deeply flawed guidance in the bill text.
  The House voted in favor of similar measures to reject the social 
cost of carbon four times last Congress and multiple times over the 
past couple of years.
  Roger Martella, a self-described, lifelong environmentalist and 
career environmental lawyer, testified at the May 2015 House Natural 
Resources Committee hearing on the revised guidance and the flaws 
associated with the social cost of carbon model, stating that the 
social cost of carbon estimates suffer from a number of significant 
flaws that should exclude them from the NEPA process.
  Among these flaws are:
  One: The projected costs of carbon emissions can be manipulated by 
changing key parameters, such as timeframes, discount rates, and other 
values that have no relation to a given project undergoing review.
  Two: OMB and other Federal agencies developed the draft social cost 
of carbon estimates without any known peer review or opportunity for 
public comment during the developmental process.
  Three: OMB's draft social cost of carbon estimates are based 
primarily on global rather than domestic costs and benefits.
  Four: There is still considerable uncertainty in many of the 
assumptions and data elements used to create the draft social cost of 
carbon estimates, such as the damage functions and the modeled time 
horizons.
  Mr. Martella's testimony was spot on. Congress, not Washington 
bureaucrats, at the behest of the President should dictate our 
country's climate change policy.
  The sweeping changes that the White House is utilizing did not go 
through the normal regulatory process, and there was no public comment.
  Unfortunately, this administration just doesn't get it and continues 
to try to circumvent Congress to impose an extremist environmental 
agenda that is not based on the best available science.
  Worse yet, the model utilized to predict the social cost of carbon 
can be easily manipulated to arrive at the desired outcome.
  For instance, the administration recently attempted to justify the 
EPA's methane rule using the social cost of carbon. Using this flawed 
metric, they claim that the EPA's methane rule will yield climate 
benefits of $690 million in 2025 and that those benefits will outweigh 
the $530 million that the rule will cost businesses and job creators 
that year alone.
  Clearly, the social cost of carbon is the administration's latest 
unconstitutional tool to deceive the American people and to enact job-
killing regulations.
  The House voted in favor of similar measures to reject the social 
cost of carbon four times last Congress and multiple times over the 
last couple of years.
  This amendment is supported by the Americans for Limited Government, 
Americans for Tax Reform, Arch Coal, the Council for Citizens Against 
Government Waste, FreedomWorks, the National Taxpayers Union, the 
Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and the Gila County Cattle Growers 
Association.
  I ask that all Members join me once again in rejecting this flawed 
proposal and in protecting job rights here in America.
  I commend the chairman and the committee for their efforts on this 
legislation and for recognizing that the NEPA process is in desperate 
need of reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman and Members, this amendment tells the 
Department of Energy to ignore the latest climate change science. Even 
worse, the amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful.
  According to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero. 
That is science denial at its worst, and, frankly, it is just simply 
wrong.
  Tell homeowners in Arizona or those who live up in Canada, where the 
wildfires have just raged and who have seen their homes ravaged by 
drought-stoked wildfires, that there are no costs from climate change.
  If you are a gardener, like I am, even the backs of seed packets have 
changed, because what used to be a Tennessee tomato, now we grow it in 
Ohio. The climate zones are moving north. It is getting warmer.
  Tell that to the firefighters who have to put everything else on the 
line to fight those fires that rage in California and points west or 
north.
  Tell that to the children and the elderly that will be plagued by 
heat stress and vulnerable to increased disease.
  Tell that to the people evacuated from the Isle de Jean Charles in 
Louisiana who will lose homes as their island vanishes under the rising 
sea.
  Or how about Houston, Texas, with the flash flooding? That is one of 
the most recent.
  These people are looking to us to protect America and to protect 
them, and they are looking to the Republicans to finally be reasonable.
  The truth is that no one will escape the effects of unmitigated 
climate

[[Page 7373]]

change. It will have an impact on all of us, and, frankly, it is having 
an impact on all of us.
  But this amendment waves a magic wand and decrees that climate change 
imposes no costs at all. House Republicans can vote for this amendment. 
They can try to block the Department from recognizing the damage caused 
by climate change and the potential damage, but they cannot overturn 
the laws of nature. They are powerful.
  We should be heeding the warnings of the climate scientists, not 
denying reality. Thank God we have them. We don't have to operate in 
ignorance.
  Recently, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the 
National Climate Assessment, which continues to show evidence 
confirming the ongoing impacts of climate change.
  Leading scientists around the world, not just here, agree the 
evidence is unambiguous. This amendment tells the Department to ignore 
some of the wisest people in the world.
  The latest science shows that climate change is expected to 
exacerbate heat waves--those have been felt around the country--
droughts--look at Lake Mead in Las Vegas. Look at the rings going down.
  Look at millions and millions of acres now enduring wildfires. Look 
at the added floods, water- and vector-borne diseases, which will be 
greater risks to human health and lives around the world.
  The security of our food supply will diminish, resulting in 
reductions in production and increases in prices.
  According to a leading climate science body, the IPCC, increasing 
global temperatures and drastic changes in water availability, which we 
have just heard about on this floor, in California, for heaven's sake, 
combined with an increase in food demand poses large risks to food 
security globally and regionally.
  When I was born, there were 146 million people in this country. By 
2050, we will have 500 million. It takes more animals, it takes more 
machines, it takes more energy, to feed that population, and it takes 
much more to feed the global population.
  Human beings and our way of life do have an impact on what happens on 
this very, very suspended planet in the Milky Way galaxy.
  This amendment tells the Department to ignore these and many other 
impacts, and, frankly, I view that as irresponsible.
  Federal agencies have a responsibility to calculate the costs of 
climate change and take them into account. It is plain common sense, 
and it is a life-and-death matter.
  That is exactly what the Obama administration is doing. An 
interagency task force worked over the course of several years to 
estimate the costs of the harm from carbon pollution.
  The cost calculation was first issued in 2010 and updated in 2014 and 
continues to be refined by incorporating new scientific and technical 
information and soliciting input from leading experts.
  This was a very constructive calculation and a conservative one at 
that, with the full costs of climate change almost certainly being 
higher. But it is better than the previous estimate and much, much 
better than assuming the costs are nothing.
  Unfortunately, that is what this amendment would require the 
government to assume: zero harm, zero costs, zero danger, from carbon 
pollution and climate change.
  The truth is that unchecked climate change would have a catastrophic 
economic and human impact here and across the world.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire from the Chair how much 
time I have.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the Earth's climate has been changing since 
the beginning of time, and that is something on which I think we can 
all agree.
  MIT researchers have looked at a massive extinction some 252 million 
years ago as a result of a massive buildup of carbon dioxide. Funny, 
man wasn't around.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that the 
administration squandered $77 billion, with a B, between fiscal year 
2008 and fiscal year 2013 in trying to study all this.
  Now, if the President, the emperor himself, would like to bypass 
Congress, that is fine. But Congress has a fiduciary duty and a 
responsibility legislatively to actually pass something that the agency 
should enforce.
  We talked about wildfires. Well, there we go again. It has been 
mismanagement of our forests that have created these catastrophic 
wildfires. Take it from somebody in Arizona who should know.
  So I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 29 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. __. (a) For an additional amount for ``Bureau of 
     Reclamation--Water and Related Resources'' for an additional 
     amount for WaterSMART programs, as authorized by subtitle F 
     of title IX of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 
     (42 U.S.C. ch. 109B), section 6002 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1015a), title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization 
     and Adjustment Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), and the 
     Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act (43 U.S.C. 
     ch. 40), there is hereby appropriated, and the amount 
     otherwise made available by this Act for ``National Nuclear 
     Security Administration--Weapons Activities'' is hereby 
     reduced by, $100,000,000.
       (b) None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     ``National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons 
     Activities'' in excess of $120,253,000 may be used for the 
     W80-4 Life Extension Program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, 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 believe this is known as amendment 
116.
  I think most of us should be aware that we are well into the first 
quarter of a new nuclear arms race this time with not only Russia, but 
with China. And perhaps there are some others out there that would like 
to build nuclear weapons and armaments.
  This amendment goes directly to one of the critical parts of that 
arms race, which is the development of what is essentially a new 
nuclear bomb. Some would like to say it is simply a refurbishment of an 
older weapon, and I guess you can get away with that if you stretch the 
words a bit.
  But this is the W80-4 nuclear bomb. It is the warhead that will go on 
the new cruise missile, sometimes called the LSRO. It is a very 
expensive proposition.
  This particular budget calls for $240 million to be spent this year 
on the early stages of the refurbishment. We are probably looking at 
twice that level of funding over the next decade to develop a few 
hundred of these weapons or these bombs.
  We need to wake up. We need to be paying attention to this trillion-
dollar enterprise. Over the next 25 years, we will be spending $1 
trillion on a new nuclear arms race.
  To what effect? Well, some would say that what we have is old and we 
ought to have something that is new. Well, what is old actually 
continues to work for many, many years.

[[Page 7374]]

  So it is not just the nuclear bombs that will be refurbished or 
rebuilt or life-extended or whatever words you want to use, but they 
are new and are extraordinary expensive and, obviously, extraordinarily 
dangerous.

                              {time}  1830

  We are going to develop an entire new array of delivery systems. 
Discussed on the House floor not so long ago in debate was the question 
of whether we ought to have new intercontinental ballistic missiles in 
the silos in the upper Midwest. It was an interesting debate. The 
result of the debate was, well, we ought to build new ICBMs for those 
silos without paying too much attention to the cost, and we ought to 
have a whole new array of nuclear-armed submarines, a new Stealth 
Bomber, and a new cruise missile.
  So what are we talking about here? A trillion dollars. At the same 
time, we debate on the floor whether we have any money for Zika. 
Apparently, we don't; although that is a real threat, and it is real 
today. We talk about our community water systems, and we don't have any 
money for those either. I will tell you where the money is. It is in 
this nuclear arms race.
  It is not about disarmament. Nobody is suggesting that. It is about 
are we going to spend all this money and perpetuate what is already 
underway without giving thought to the impact it is going to have on 
the things that we know we must do--educate our children, provide the 
infrastructure for our communities, our water, our sanitation systems, 
and our transportation systems--or are we going to go about building 
new nuclear bombs.
  Apparently, that is what we are going to do because there is $240 
million right here, money that we didn't have available for Zika, money 
that we don't have for the water systems of Flint, Michigan, or our own 
State of California. But it is here.
  The W80--keep that number in mind, ladies and gentlemen. You are 
going to see that coming back before you as we appropriate more and 
more dollars for not only this new nuclear bomb, but for many others.
  So I draw your attention to this issue. I ask that we move about $100 
million of this money out of this nuclear bomb that we really don't 
need for another decade. We don't need it tomorrow. We may never need 
it. It won't be on any piece of equipment for at least a decade. So why 
don't we spend this money on our communities? Why don't we spend it on 
Flint, Michigan? Why don't we spend it on the communities in Central 
Valley, California, that we have heard so much about?
  There are communities that don't have water systems, communities in 
the San Joaquin Valley that we heard so much about just a moment ago 
where the children have to take their water out of a horse water 
trough, not out of a tap.
  No, we are going to spend our money building a new nuclear bomb. I 
think that is wrong. I think it is not necessary. In fact, I know it is 
not necessary. But that is what we are going to do.
  So I ask you to make a choice, to make a choice to spend our money on 
what we need today: clean water systems, transportation, and education, 
not on a new nuclear bomb.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman's comments, and I 
respect the gentleman.
  He mentioned many of the functions that are necessary for the 
government that we should be doing. The one he didn't mention was 
defending the security of the United States. That is one of the 
fundamental purposes of the Federal Government.
  What this amendment would do is take money out of the program to 
continue the life extension program of the W80 warhead, the only cruise 
missile in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The gentleman says we don't need 
it now, so let's spend the money somewhere else; and if we need it next 
year, I guess we can just spend the money next year.
  But you can't develop this, and you don't do these life-extension 
programs in just a year. These are long-term investments. The life 
extension program will replace the nonnuclear and other components to 
support the Air Force's plan to develop the long-range standoff cruise 
missile, or the LRSO. If the gentleman believes the LRSO is not 
necessary, I would point him at the Air Force, whose leadership has 
testified on numerous occasions before Congress that we need to sustain 
our nuclear capabilities and we need to make these investments.
  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. While the LRSO is still at an early 
stage of development, these warheads are very complex, and there is a 
considerable amount of work to accomplish between now and then. 
Performing development work earlier in the schedule will allow the NNSA 
to reduce technical risks and limit any cost growth by validating the 
military requirements at an early stage.
  The gentleman's amendment will not stop the program but would only 
add additional risks into the schedule and raise the cost for 
modernizing the warhead down the line.
  I should point out also that the gentleman's amendment also proposes 
to move defense funding to nondefense without any regard to the 
firewalls negotiated in previous budget deals.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. 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.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Gosar 221.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to save 
taxpayer money, help the Department of Energy avoid duplicative 
programs, and ensure the agency's limited resources are focused on 
programs directly related to its mission to ensure energy security for 
the United States.
  This simple amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the Climate 
Model Development and Validation program within the Department of 
Energy. This exact same amendment passed this body in fiscal year 2015 
and 2016.
  This year, this amendment is even more important because, despite 
this amendment getting approval from this body multiple years in a row 
and being denied funding from the bipartisan Appropriations Committee 
multiple years in a row, the President was given access to about half 
of what he requested previously to create this new duplicitous and 
wasteful program.
  With our Nation more than $19 trillion in debt, the question must be 
asked: Why would Congress give millions of dollars to the President for 
new computer-generated climate models? The administration is already 
manipulating the social cost of carbon models to deceive the American 
people and to enact job-killing regulations.
  For example, the administration recently attempted to justify the 
EPA's methane rule using the social cost of carbon valuation model. 
Using this flawed metric, they claimed that the EPA's methane rule will 
yield climate benefits of $690 million in 2025 and that those benefits 
will outweigh the $530 million that the rule would cost businesses and 
job creators that year alone.
  If funded, the Climate Model Development and Validation program will 
be yet another addition to the President's

[[Page 7375]]

ever-growing list of duplicative global warming, research, and modeling 
programs currently being hijacked by the EPA to manufacture alleged 
climate benefits and force new regulations like the EPA's Clean Power 
Plan and WOTUS down the throats of the American people. The nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service estimates this administration has 
already squandered $77 billion from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal 
year 2013 studying and trying to develop global climate change 
regulations.
  This amendment is about fiscal responsibility and priorities. While 
research and modeling of the Earth's climate--including how and why 
Earth's climate is changing--can be of value, it is not central to the 
department's mission and is already being done by dozens of government, 
academic, business, and nonprofit organizations around the world. With 
more than 50 universities and academic institutions around the globe 
engaged in climate modeling, this particular issue is being addressed 
very well by the academic and nonprofit sector with much greater 
efficiency and speed than any government bureaucracy can offer. 
Further, the research and models utilized by our universities are not 
being manipulated to impose a partisan agenda.
  Regardless of your opinion on climate change, I feel strongly that 
the House of Representatives must continue its firm position that we 
should not be wasting precious taxpayer resources on programs that are 
duplicitous in nature and compete with programs funded by private 
investment.
  The wastefulness of the Climate Model and Validation program has been 
recognized by several outside spending and watchdog groups. This 
amendment proposal has been supported in the past by the Council for 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the American Conservative Union, 
Eagle Forum, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
  The House of Representatives has wisely declined to fund this program 
in fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016. Considering the extensive work 
being done to research, model, and forecast climate change trends by 
other areas in government, the private sector, and internationally, 
funding for this specific piece of President Obama's climate agenda is 
not only redundant, but inefficient. Considering the Nation's $19 
trillion in debt, it is also irresponsible
  I thank the chairman, ranking member, and committee for their work.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, years ago, there were people that served in 
this body that denied that America should pass a Clean Water Act. 
Today, in many places in our country when we turn on the tap, we trust 
what we drink. We had to change our way of life. Yes, we had to make 
investments, but we produced a stronger country.
  There were those who fought against the Clean Air Act. You can go 
back and read the Record. There are always those folks who have 
difficulty embracing the future.
  This amendment blocks funding for the Department of Energy's Climate 
Model Development and Validation program. This is climate science 
denial at its worst.
  It used to be that people said, well, it is okay that industry dumps 
in the water. It kind of washes everything out somewhere. Well, when 
the bald eagle became an endangered species, it became pretty clear 
that all of that pollution was causing long-term damage. Now the 
world's top scientists are telling us that we have a rapidly closing 
window to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts 
of climate change cannot be avoided.
  So far, the world has already warmed by 0.9 degrees Celsius, and we 
are already seeing the effects of climate change. Most scientists agree 
that 2 degrees Celsius is the maximum amount we can warm without really 
dangerous tipping points, although many scientists now believe that 
even 2 degrees is far too much, given the effects we are already 
experiencing all around the world. But absent dramatic action, we are 
on track to warm 4 to 6 degrees Celsius by midcentury. That is more 
than 10 degrees Fahrenheit.
  Even with the pledges to reduce carbon emissions as part of COP 21, 
we are still in danger of experiencing the drastic consequences of 
climate change, including increased frequency and intensity of extreme 
weather events and drought. The International Energy Agency has 
concluded that increased efforts are still needed--in addition to 
existing pledges--to stay within the 2-degree limit.
  We are already seeing the devastation from climate change, including, 
recently, the evacuation of climate refugees from the Isle de Jean 
Charles near New Orleans. So you sort of think to the world you knew 
versus the world of the future, and you have to embrace the future, and 
you have to help those who are going to follow us.
  There are multiple lines of evidence, including direct measurements, 
that life is changing. The projections that these models anticipate are 
critical as they provide the guideposts to understanding how quickly 
and how steeply the world needs to cut carbon pollution in order to 
avoid the worst effects of climate change.
  The goal of the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and 
Validation program is to further improve the reliability of climate 
models and equip policymakers and citizens with tools to predict the 
current and future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, 
extreme weather events, and drought.
  This amendment scraps this program. It says ``no'' to enhancing the 
reliability of our climate models. Who wouldn't want that? It says 
``no'' to investing in the security of the people of this Nation and 
the Nation's assets themselves. It says ``no'' to improving our 
understanding of how the climate is changing, and it says ``no'' to 
informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate 
change. That is absolutely irresponsible and an outcome this Nation 
cannot afford.
  It is interesting. There is an author, Richard Louv, who has written 
a book, ``Last Child in the Woods.'' What it talks about is how America 
has become so technologically sophisticated that most people have lost 
a real connection to nature, especially our children, who spend 8 hours 
in front of a blue screen. But perhaps it is because of that 
technological advancement and lack of connection to nature that we do 
not have a population--including, perhaps, some who serve in this 
Chamber--that observe what nature is actually doing in her powerful 
force.
  I would urge our colleagues to read that book and to think a little 
bit about reconnecting to nature, paying attention to what the 
temperature is of the lake near you or the ocean near you. Pay 
attention to what is happening in our coastal communities. Pay 
attention to what is happening in agriculture and our ability to 
produce food for the future because of changes in weather.
  What is happening with rainfall? There is a lot going on. What 
happens to clouds in your region of the country? How close do they come 
to the Earth? When the rain falls, how severe are those weather events? 
These events are happening around our country and around our world.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition, obviously, to this 
amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment because I don't 
think it leads us into the future. I think it takes us back into the 
past, to a world that does not exist anymore.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about making a 
statement about climate change or the validity of science. This 
amendment is

[[Page 7376]]

about fiscal responsibility and efficiency.
  More than 50 universities and institutions around the globe are 
engaged in climate modeling. This particular issue is being addressed 
very well by the academic and nonprofit sector, with much greater 
efficiency and speed than government bureaucracy can offer.
  Can I remind you of the VA? The government doesn't do anything very 
well at all, and we need to start looking at this.
  When we talk about responsibility, $19 trillion in debt, there are 
some apples that we need to start coming to look at. When we start 
looking at institutions that are actually doing this, they are hardly 
second-tier institutions--the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
MIT for short; the University of California, Berkeley. There are some 
really good people out there doing this work on our behalf.
  When we start looking at efficacies and effectiveness, we need to 
look no further than the private sector and the universities that are 
already doing this. This is something we don't need to be duplicitous 
in and be partisan in our outcomes.
  I ask my colleagues to 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 Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. 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. __.  In addition to the amounts otherwise provided 
     under the heading ``Department of the Army--Corps of 
     Engineers-Civil--Construction'', there is appropriated 
     $311,000,000 for fiscal year 2017, to remain available 
     through fiscal year 2026, for an additional amount for flood 
     control projects and storm damage reduction projects to save 
     lives and protect property in areas affected by flooding on 
     April 19th, 2016, that have received a major disaster 
     declaration pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by the Congress as being for disaster 
     relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

  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 743, the gentleman from Texas and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as a preamble to my amendment, 
please allow me to thank the chairman, Mr. Simpson, for his courtesies. 
I would also like to thank the ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for her 
courtesies.
  Mr. Chairman, if you live in Houston, Texas, you monitor the weather. 
You monitor the weather, Mr. Chairman, because, over the last year, 
Houston, Texas, has been declared a disaster area not once, but twice. 
If you live in Houston, Texas, you monitor the weather because, in the 
last year, we have spent billions in recovery damages. If you live in 
Houston, Texas, you monitor the weather because, in the last year, we 
have lost 17 lives to flooding.
  Houston has a problem. But there is a solution. This amendment--which 
is based upon H.R. 5025, an emergency supplemental bill--would accord 
$311 million that will eventually be spent. This is not money that will 
not be spent in Houston, Texas, but money that will be spent on 
projects that are already authorized. The projects are authorized. The 
money is going to be spent.
  However, we can take a piecemeal approach and do some now, some 
later, and spend billions more in recovery efforts, which is what we 
are doing. We are spending billions after floods when we could spend 
millions before and save money, save lives, and give Houston, Texas, 
and the citizens therein some degree of comfort.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that my friends in this House have a great 
deal of sympathy and a good deal of empathy for Houston, Texas, as is 
evidenced by the fact that over 70 Members have signed onto the bill, 
H.R. 5025. And we have bipartisan support. We have Republicans at the 
committee level who are doing what they can within the committee. We 
also have Democrats who are working to try to help Houston, Texas.
  So I am honored tonight to stand in the well of the House to make 
this request, that Houston, Texas, be made a priority and that the 
Corps of Engineers, when they do assess the needs of the Nation, that 
Houston be given some degree of preference because money is being spent 
that need not be spent.
  But, more importantly, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member, lives 
are being lost. Houston, Texas, has what are captioned as flash floods. 
You can find yourself in a circumstance from which you cannot extricate 
yourself, and you may lose your life when we have one of these 
inclement, adverse weather conditions.
  They happen more often than prognosticated some years ago. It can be 
debated as to whether we are having 100-year floods or 500-year floods. 
That is debatable. But what is not debatable is the fact that we are 
having billion-dollar floods--billion-dollar floods--in Houston, Texas, 
a major American city declared a disaster area not once, but twice in 
the last year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on April 18th the City of Houston 
and Harris County, Texas were subjected to paralyzing flooding which 
claimed the lives of seven of our citizens and required the rescue of 
1,200 more.
  Approximately 2,000 housing units were flooded and we are currently 
working to figure out where to house the folks who cannot return to 
their homes.
  This is the second major flooding disaster Houston has experienced in 
the last six months and the City is expecting additional rain and 
thunderstorms on Friday and Saturday of this week.
  Residents in our congressional district as well as other Member's 
districts have been severely affected and we must do something to stop 
the needless loss of life.
  The President has recognized the significance of the catastrophe and 
a fulfilled a request for a disaster declaration.
  Now it's the job of Congress to help our constituents.
  I have worked closely with my neighbor and friend, Rep. Al Green to 
offer this amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  The amendment would provide $311 million dollars to the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers for the construction, and in most cases, completion 
of our bayous and flood control projects.
  Flooding is not new in Houston but we've learned how to control it.
  Our bayou system has saved countless lives and millions of dollars of 
damage since creation.
  Unfortunately, due to consistent budget pressure, the Army Corps of 
Engineers cannot adequately fund these projects.
  This amendment would ensure that our federal, state, and local 
authorities have the resources necessary to expedite the flood control 
projects we know protect people and property.
  Mr. Chair, we can help the victims in our neighborhoods and we must 
help them.
  I urge this body to pass this emergency funding legislation and do so 
quickly.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SIMPSON. 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 includes an emergency designation and, as such, 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?

[[Page 7377]]


  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard, if I 
may.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized on the point of order.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Would Chairman Simpson allow me to give my 
closing comments before we receive the ruling from the Chair, which 
will be just a few seconds more, I believe?
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining on 
the amendment.
  Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Well, yes, on the point of order, if so, in so 
doing, I may speak to the flooding in Houston, Texas. I want to be 
appropriate as I do this, and I will yield to the wisdom of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency 
designation.
  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.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the fine gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Kaptur.
  Please allow me to continue with just a brief commentary. I have a 
colleague who is not here, the Honorable Gene Green. He has asked that 
his statement with reference to this amendment be placed in the Record.
  I would also add this. A good deal of my comments have emanated from, 
as I indicated, H.R. 5025.
  This bill has bipartisan support. I see in the Chamber my good friend 
and colleague, the Honorable Ted Poe, who is one of the cosponsors of 
the legislation.
  Some of my other colleagues who are cosponsoring from Texas would 
include the Honorable John Culberson, the Honorable Randy Weber, the 
Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, also the Honorable Gene Green whom I have 
mentioned. There are others as well.
  This is bipartisan. This is a recognition that we are going to have 
problems that we can solve that will create greater circumstances than 
we should have to endure.
  There is little reason for us to be back here a year or so from now 
indicating that we have had another flood, a billion-dollar flood--
maybe less, maybe more--and that we may have lost lives in that future 
event.
  My hope is that, while this amendment is not in order--and I accept 
the ruling of the Chair--my hope is that we will find a means by which 
we will do sooner that which we will do later, spend the $311 million 
after we have had additional billion-dollar floods.
  This amendment makes good sense. It is a commonsense solution.
  I thank the ranking member for her very kind words and the 
opportunity that she has accorded me.
  I thank you, Mr. Simpson, for being so generous as well.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's passion with 
this and his obvious concern and interest. I will tell you that there 
is a great deal of support for what the gentleman is proposing.
  Congressman Poe, Congressman Culberson, as well as Members on your 
side of the aisle, have talked to us repeatedly about the issues that 
you address here.
  While this amendment is out of order, I will promise to the gentleman 
that we will work with him to try to address this problem of one of 
America's great cities.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. As he 
knows, I believe his word is as good as gold.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho

  Mr. YOHO. 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 by the Department of Energy to employ in excess of 95 
     percent of the Department's total number of employees as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simply a commonsense measure to 
help reduce the size of out-of-control Federal departments that 
continue to grow annually unchecked, increasing both scope, size, and 
increasing our spending, both discretionary and mandatory.
  Our Nation is over $19 trillion in debt--let me repeat that--$19 
trillion in debt. This Chamber, us, we, the people, in government, or 
Members of the people's House in charge of the taxpayers' purse 
strings, must start taking action to actively reduce our expenditures.
  I appreciate the chairman and ranking member for their hard work on 
this bill. But I am concerned that the cost it will place on the 
American people is too great. We can do better and we must do better.
  This amendment is offered as a modest solution and establishes a 5 
percent across-the-board cut to the Department of Energy's total 
employees.
  In the private sector, when scrambling to cover your costs, you have 
to make decisions, including sometimes the elimination of positions 
that are not essential to the overall purpose and mission of the 
organization, or you simply can't afford it.
  Not only is reducing the current size of the Department's full-time 
staff essential, but I think it also should be accompanied by a 1-year 
hiring freeze.
  In 2013, when the government was shut down--and I want to remind 
people that the government shut down over money, and it wasn't from an 
excess; it was from a lack of it--the Department of Energy was faced 
with this very dilemma and made a decision to furlough 69 percent of 
its workforce. These workers were deemed nonessential.
  I understand the circumstances were extraordinary, but the Department 
was still able to target areas within it that were not deemed essential 
to maintaining its most necessary functions.
  My amendment is only requiring the Department to reduce its full-time 
employees by 5 percent, which in the scheme of things is nominal, but 
essential, in getting our country back on track fiscally, and it is the 
right thing to do.
  For our Nation to remain prosperous and to keep the American Dream 
alive for generations to come, we must make these decisions now. We 
must scale back Federal spending. One cannot have personal freedom 
without financial freedom.
  That same philosophy also applies to nations if they wish to pass on 
to their future generations the blessings of our past and our current 
posterity, liberties, and freedoms.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I understand the desire for an efficient and 
effective Federal Government with an appropriately sized workforce. In 
fact, if the gentleman has specific programs or offices that he 
believes are currently overstaffed, I would be happy to work with him 
to see if that is the case and to figure out a way to address any 
problems we may find; but this amendment doesn't look at specific 
details and make targeted reductions.
  It requires the Department of Energy to furlough 5 percent of its 
employees

[[Page 7378]]

on October 1. It doesn't allow the Department time to review whether it 
might need more people to carry out its national security 
responsibilities, for instance, or fewer people to carry out other 
programs whose work is ramping down or is being reduced by this bill. 
That is not good government. That is putting almost 800 people across 
the country out of work for no good reason.
  The underlying bill, on the other hand, includes reasonable and 
targeted reductions to funding levels for the Department's 
administrative accounts. The departmental administration account was 
$36 million below the President's budget request in the bill that was 
brought to the floor, and amendments already passed by the House have 
resulted in further cuts to the departmental administration. Federal 
salaries and expenses for the National Nuclear Security Administration 
are $30 million below the President's request. The funding levels in 
this bill send a clear message about growth in the Federal workforce. 
Requiring an automatic 5 percent cut across the board is a step too 
far. As I said, it is not good government.
  For these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote against it.
  I would also note that when the gentleman said that during the 
government shutdown, it furloughed 60-some-odd percent of its 
employees, remember, we are talking 16 days here, and these employees 
were labeled as ``nonessential.'' The same thing happened in Congress. 
At least I know in my office--and I would suspect in the gentleman's 
office--we had to declare which employees were nonessential. Those 
employees now work for me again and have been rehired. I would suspect 
they have been in the gentleman's office, too. Just because they were 
furloughed during a 16-day government shutdown doesn't mean they are, 
essentially, nonessential.
  I don't think this is a well-thought-out amendment. I oppose it, and 
I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chair, I join the chairman in opposing this amendment. It is, 
truly, a blunt cut--5 percent to the Department of Energy from its 
current level with no analysis, no consultation, no consideration of 
impact. It is just a blunt cut. It would actually mean about 700 people 
who would be fired at headquarters, at field offices, even at our Power 
Marketing Administrations across the West. Layoffs of this magnitude 
would profoundly impede the Department of Energy's ability to oversee 
its nuclear security responsibilities, its science and energy and 
environmental cleanup mandates.
  I strenuously oppose this amendment and urge the gentleman to bring 
back a more thoughtful amendment at some point if he wishes, but I 
don't support the blunt cut.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's 
opposition.
  I would like to remind them that this amendment is a necessary step 
in reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government. We are 
approaching $20 trillion in debt. That approximates to about $60,000 
for every man, woman, and child in America. When we talked about 
nonessential employees, I didn't have any in my office. Everybody in my 
office was essential, so we didn't lay anybody off. We didn't put them 
off.
  The gentleman laughs, which is fine.
  The executive departments and agencies have gradually taken on the 
personification of the 1958 horror flick, ``The Blob.'' Departments 
like the DOE are consuming everything in their path and increasing 
their own presence in the private sector.
  At what point do we say enough is enough? At what point do we say we 
are going to get our spending under control?
  This is a small, 5 percent incremental change to the Department of 
Energy. It is not specific because it gives the flexibility to the 
Department to come up with the changes that it wants, keeping in mind 
that our Federal Government's number one task is national security; so 
the people who are tasked to run the Department of Energy can make the 
commonsense and the needed reforms that they need to.
  Again, in the private sector, you see the major companies changing 
and laying off people as they need to. Government continues to grow, 
and it adds not just to the discretionary spending, but also to the 
mandatory spending that goes into Social Security and retirement.
  We have a responsibility to the American people and to future 
generations to fix the problems at hand instead of giving rhetoric and 
saying: Well, it is not specific enough. We need to stand up and say: 
The time is now. If we start now with small, incremental changes, we 
can change the direction of our Nation's debt while we still have the 
option because the day will come when we will not have that option with 
our out-of-control spending.
  I am telling my colleagues, if they really want to change the debt 
structure in this country and get a handle on it, it is time we start 
now and stop talking about it. I urge people to support this.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Energy for the Experimental 
     Program to Stimulate Competitive Research.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I offer an amendment on behalf of me and my colleague, Congressman 
Scott Garrett, who is my Republican co-chair of the Payer State Caucus, 
which is a group of Members opposed to the massive transfer of wealth 
between one set of States to another.
  This amendment is a very simple one that would prohibit any of the 
funds in this bill from being used in the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research, otherwise known as EPSCoR. EPSCoR was 
started in 1978 as an experimental program in the hopes of 
strengthening research infrastructure in areas of the country that 
receive less than their fair share, however defined.
  As a scientist and as an American, I think this goal is commendable, 
but the implementation of this program--and, in particular, the 
formulas used to earmark grants to a specific set of States--is absurd. 
The ability to participate in EPSCoR opportunities is based solely on 
whether or not a State has received less than 0.75 percent of the NSF 
research funding in the previous 3 years. Let me reiterate that. The 
Department of Energy's EPSCoR eligibility is determined by how much NSF 
research funding a given State has received in the previous 3 years.
  There is no rational basis for earmarking a grant program in one area 
of spending based on the spending in another unrelated program. 
Moreover, because EPSCoR considers the funding on a per-State basis 
rather than on a per capita basis, it has devolved into just another 
one of the many programs that steers money into States that already get 
far more than their fair share of Federal spending.
  EPSCoR is emblematic of a larger problem we have in this country. 
Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars are transferred out of 
States that pay far more in Federal taxes than they receive back in 
Federal spending--the payer States--and into States that receive a lot 
more Federal spending than they pay back in taxes--the taker States. In 
the case of Illinois, our economy loses $40 billion a year because we

[[Page 7379]]

pay far more in Federal taxes than we receive back in Federal spending. 
As for my colleague from New Jersey, his State on a per capita basis 
has it even worse. This alone is responsible for the fiscal stress in 
both of our States.
  This is an enormous and unjustifiable redistribution of wealth 
between the States. This amendment takes a first small step to begin 
rolling back these taker State preferences by eliminating one of the 
many--but one of the most unjustifiable of them--the EPSCoR program.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's passion for the 
Office of Science. I am a strong supporter of the Office of Science and 
the work that they do.
  As the Nation's largest supporter of basic research in the physical 
sciences, the Office of Science directs important research funding to 
the national laboratories and universities across this country. The 
EPSCoR program extends this even further by supporting research in 
areas where there has historically been less Federal funding.
  The program has been successful in laying the foundation and in 
expanding research programs in the basic sciences across the Nation. 
Taking away this funding puts existing grants and partnerships in 
jeopardy at the many universities that receive EPSCoR grants. 
Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge other Members to do 
the same.
  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would 
eliminate funding for the Department of Energy's EPSCoR program.
  For more than 40 years, the Department of Energy has provided 
academic research funding to colleges and universities around the 
Nation, and it has been critical to ongoing research that is essential 
to maintaining our competitive edge in energy advancement.
  The DOE's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, 
commonly known as EPSCoR, is a science-driven, merit-based program, 
whose mission is to help balance the allocation of DOE and other 
Federal research and development funding to avoid an undue 
concentration of money to only a few States.
  This successful program has had a profound impact on my home State of 
Rhode Island by allowing our academic institutions to increase research 
capacity, to enrich the experiences of their students, and to 
contribute to important advances in a variety of fields. Currently, 24 
States, including Rhode Island, and three jurisdictions account for 
only about 6 percent of all DOE funding despite the fact that these 
States account for 20 percent of the U.S. population. EPSCoR has helped 
to stabilize this imbalance in funding, and it should continue to do so 
in the 2017 fiscal year and beyond.
  In order to ensure robust academic research and outcomes across the 
country, geographic diversity in funding should be considered to ensure 
that we are taking advantage of the particular experiences, knowledge, 
and perspectives of academic institutions from every State. This 
amendment to eliminate this successful program would be a step backward 
for the United States' commitment to research and development. 
Investments in critical programs, such as EPSCoR, are essential to 
creating jobs, innovating for the future, and maintaining our 
competitive edge in scientific research and a global economy.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing this amendment.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, first off, I would like to emphasize that this 
does not take away funding from the Office of Science. It eliminates a 
very poorly designed set-aside that is based on spending that is 
completely unrelated to the actual Office of Science.
  If the goal of this program were to equalize the funding in the 
Office of Science, then it should be based on the actual expenditures 
of the Office of Science so that States that are underrepresented there 
would, presumably, be able to qualify for these. It does not do that. 
If it were designed to equalize the spending between States that 
receive a lot more Federal funding than those that don't, then you 
would see a very different set of States in this.
  Particularly the fact that it is not based on a per capita basis is 
the fundamental flaw in this thing. If you look at those States, the 
single distinguishing characteristic is not that they are poor or rural 
or anything else; it is that they have small populations, which means 
that they are overrepresented in the Senate.
  One of the main mechanisms for transferring wealth out of large 
States like New Jersey, like Illinois, like California, and a large 
number of other States into smaller States are spending formulas that 
have, frankly, been cooked up in the Senate, where small States are 
overrepresented and the formulas steer large amounts of money into 
them.
  If this were based on a per capita basis, it would, at least, be 
rational. If the Office of Science's funding were based on actual 
expenditures, at least in the Department of Energy, it would be 
rational. What we see are States receiving EPSCoR funds that get far 
more than their share both in Federal funding and in Department of 
Energy funding overall. A rational program would, first off, collect 
all research funding in all areas and base the set-asides on that. 
Secondly, it would do it on a per capita basis.
  These are fundamental flaws, and at this point it is preferable to 
just eliminate the entire program and start over if people think it is 
a useful thing.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's arguments. It 
sounds like we are back at the Constitutional Convention: Should we 
have the legislative branch of government be represented by the 
population, or should it be represented by the States? I know. Let's 
compromise. Let's have two bodies, one that represents the States with 
an equal number from each State, and one that represents the 
population. We will call one the House of Representatives, and we will 
call one the Senate. That is how it works out.
  We are one Nation, and we try to make sure that funds go to all 
States. Some of them have a disadvantage just by the sheer size. And if 
you look at Idaho, we are the 12th largest State, and, I suspect, 
populationwise, we are down there substantially. Montana is probably 
even worse off than we are. So it is almost impossible for the 
universities and so forth to compete with some of the larger States.
  So we can argue about whether the formulas are correct or absolutely 
correct or if they shouldn't be modified or anything else like that, 
and I am more than willing to do that, but to eliminate the program I 
think is just an entire mistake.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Black

  Mrs. BLACK. 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:

[[Page 7380]]

       Sec. 508.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, sanctuary cities flaunt our laws and put 
our citizens at risk. We need only to look at the tragic 2015 murder of 
Kate Steinle in San Francisco to see the grave danger of allowing 
cities to ignore the Federal immigration policy. We cannot allow this 
to stand. That is why I am introducing this amendment to the Energy and 
Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill that would 
ban funding to any State or city that refuses to comply with our 
immigration laws.
  Mr. Chair, I recognize that some of my colleagues may say that an 
amendment like this is better suited on the Homeland Security or the 
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill; and, indeed, I joined 
my colleague, Congressman Gosar, on a letter to the subcommittees 
asking that similar language be attached to their bills as well. But 
the truth is, Mr. Chairman, amnesty for lawbreakers impacts every 
aspect of our society: our jobs, our security, and, in the case of Ms. 
Steinle, a young innocent woman's life.
  I believe the crisis of sanctuary cities demands a multipronged 
response, and this amendment can be a piece of that effort. If cities 
choose to put their citizens at risk in defiance of Federal law--yes, 
in defiance of Federal law--there is no reason to continue spending 
Federal money on their energy and water projects. It is really that 
simple.
  I urge my colleagues to take a vote for your constituents and support 
this commonsense amendment.
  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. Chair, the Black amendment would prohibit financial 
assistance to any State or political subdivision that is acting in 
contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act. But this is an energy and water bill. This isn't a 
part of our bill.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment because it is, frankly, 
nongermane. The Department of Energy isn't involved. The Army Corps of 
Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation or the regional independent 
agencies that are under the jurisdiction of this bill have nothing to 
do with the concern that the gentlewoman raises.
  Why are we debating immigration policy on an Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill? It doesn't make any sense.
  Frankly, the amendment would prohibit funding for State and local 
governments that have policies against the sharing of information 
related to immigration status, but State and local law enforcement 
routinely and automatically share biometric information with ICE that 
is used to determine immigration status. They do so through the same 
electronic system that shares these biometrics with the FBI for checks 
against the criminal databases. So even if this amendment were germane, 
I don't think the amendment is necessary or would do what the 
gentlewoman believes that it would do.
  Even more to the point, if the premise of the amendment is that local 
law enforcement agencies aren't notifying ICE prior to releasing from 
custody individuals who fit ICE immigration enforcement priorities, 
then the amendment is misguided because the Department of Homeland 
Security has established a priority enforcement program, known as the 
PEP, designed to better work with State and local law enforcement to 
take custody of criminal aliens who pose a danger in public safety 
before they are released into our communities.
  Prior to that program's establishment, 377 jurisdictions refused to 
honor some or all of ICE detainers. But as of early this year, 277 of 
those jurisdictions, or 73 percent, have now signed up to participate 
in that program by responding to ICE requests for notification, 
honoring detainer requests, or both.
  So the Department of Homeland Security is making good progress in 
soliciting the participation of State and local law enforcement in the 
PEP program, and we should support them in those efforts and avoid 
muddling the issue and reject this amendment.
  The Department of Homeland Security is not a part of the 
Appropriations Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee; and it is doubtful that this amendment would have any 
effect, even if it were germane to the bill and not subject to a point 
of order.
  Because this biometric sharing system is in effect across the 
country, no jurisdiction currently refuses to share information about 
immigration with ICE. So, as a result, it is difficult to see how this 
amendment would have any effect whatsoever, even if it were offered on 
the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Committee or the 
Department of Homeland Security bills.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Frankly, it is not 
germane to this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, it really is ironic that this amendment is 
even necessary. It would not be necessary if the executive branch and 
the Department of Justice and Homeland Security were all doing their 
job and applying the law to each one of these sanctuary cities.
  I do want to point to the fact that, back in February of this year, 
Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified before the House 
Appropriations Committee. It was in that committee that she talked 
about cracking down on what is happening in these sanctuary cities. I 
want to read what was in The Washington Times that came as a result of 
that testimony:
  ``The Obama administration is preparing to crack down on sanctuary 
cities, Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Congress on Wednesday, 
saying she would try to stop Federal grant money from going to 
jurisdictions that actively thwart agents seeking to deport illegal 
immigrants.''
  It goes on to say that there was a follow-up in a letter to Mr. 
Culberson that week that the Justice Department said that if it 
determined that a city or a county receiving Federal grants is refusing 
to cooperate with ICE agents, they could lose money and face criminal 
prosecution.
  So, hopefully, we will see the administration crack down on what 
really is unlawful, and that is for these sanctuary cities to be in 
operation at all. They should not be receiving any Federal funds in 
each one of these appropriation bills, and that is exactly what this 
amendment does.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney

  Mr. McNERNEY. 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. __.  No Federal funds under this Act may be used for a 
     project with respect to which an investigation was initiated 
     by the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior 
     during calendar years 2015, 2016, or 2017.

  Mr. McNERNEY (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that my amendment be considered read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would object to waiving the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard. The Clerk will continue to 
read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.

[[Page 7381]]

  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from California and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, California, like much of the West, has 
been enduring a devastating drought. This affects the livelihoods of 
families, farmers, and small businesses throughout the State.
  California's Governor now wants to move forward with something called 
WaterFix tunnels plan, which will build two massive tunnels to divert 
water from one part of the State to another.
  I agree with every other Californian that we need long-term, 
statewide solutions to our State's water needs. I agree that there 
needs to be some level of certainty for the families, farmers, and 
small businesses about our water supply. To do that, we need to focus 
on conservation, recycling, reuse, storage, and leak detection and 
fixing. The WaterFix tunnels do none of these things. It creates no new 
water at all.
  California voters and the State legislature haven't agreed on whether 
or not to fund this project, which is expected to exceed at least $25 
billion, and that cost keeps rising. In addition, the Federal 
Government is expected to contribute $4 billion.
  The cost of this plan is an even more important issue now that the 
Department of the Interior inspector general has opened an 
investigation into the possible illegal use of millions of dollars by 
the California Department of Water Resources in preparing environmental 
documents for the WaterFix tunnels plan. Instead of funding important 
habitat improvements, the State administration may be using Federal 
funds for the tunnel plan that will harm critical habitat for at least 
five endangered and threatened species.
  California needs a water solution for the entire State, not one that 
is too expensive, doesn't create water, and is potentially the source 
of misappropriated funds. We have to use the funding for projects that 
make sense for California, that make California resilient and 
regionally self-sufficient.
  My amendment will ban the government from funding tunnels taking our 
water, especially while subject to Federal investigation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his 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 imposes additional duties.
  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 requires a new determination on 
the Federal officials covered by the bill with regard to investigations 
of the Department of the Interior.
  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.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment has been ruled out and is no longer 
pending.

                              {time}  1930


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  In allocating funds made available by this Act 
     for projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Chief of 
     Engineers shall give priority to the Dog River, Fowl River, 
     Fly Creek, Bayou Coden, and Bayou La Batre projects.

  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 743, the gentleman from Alabama and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would allow for a number of 
important Army Corps of Engineers projects in my home district of 
coastal Alabama to move forward.
  In many areas, our Nation's waterways are the lifeblood of the 
economy. Being from a port city, I certainly understand this and 
appreciate the work the Army Corps of Engineers does to keep our 
waterways well maintained.
  I know the Army Corps works hard in tandem with Congress to 
prioritize projects to keep our waterways and ports open for commerce. 
Unfortunately, at times, it seems like smaller projects in our more 
rural areas get ignored or forgotten altogether. While they may not 
include a major waterway, these projects are vital to many of our local 
communities and have a significant economic impact from commercial and 
recreational fishing as well as tourism in general.
  My amendment seeks to prioritize some projects in southwest Alabama 
that are long overdue. These include a project to dredge Fly Creek in 
Baldwin County, where depths need restoring after severe flooding in 
2014. Another project would allow for Dog and Fowl Rivers to be dredged 
to help accommodate commercial and recreational fishing. This project 
hasn't been touched since 2009. Yet another project that needs 
attention is Bayou Coden, which is an important area for local 
shipbuilding.
  I must thank the Army Corps of Engineers for their attention to a few 
projects in coastal Alabama, such as dredging Perdido Pass and the Bon 
Secour River. These are critical projects, but more work remains.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that my amendment may not be allowed under 
House rules, but I believe it is important to have this debate and 
remind the Committee on Appropriations as well as the Army Corps of 
Engineers about the importance of these smaller projects that really 
make a huge difference in communities across the United States.
  In these tight budget times, I know it can be difficult to balance 
the need for major Army Corps projects with smaller projects like the 
one I have mentioned, but I hope the Army Corps will work with Congress 
to seek a proper balance that ensures our smaller waterways receive the 
maintenance and attention they deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I do understand the gentleman's concern. 
In fact, this is an issue we hear about from quite a few Members. The 
administration's insistence on budgeting on tonnage alone with no other 
consideration is shortsighted. That is why this bill provides 
additional funding specifically for small navigation projects, and the 
report encourages the administration to correct its budget criteria.
  Unfortunately, the gentleman's amendment would establish priority in 
funding for specific projects. That is not something I can support, 
particularly in light of the House prohibition on congressional 
earmarks.
  I would urge my colleague to withdraw his amendment and instead 
continue to work with the committee to show the administration the 
importance of small navigation projects.
  Mr. BYRNE. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 7382]]


  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's words. He is a 
man of his word. I appreciate his understanding the importance of these 
projects.
  Having heard his words, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney

  Mr. McNERNEY. 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 issue Federal debt forgiveness or capital 
     repayment forgiveness for any district or entity served by 
     the Central Valley Project if the district or entity has been 
     subject to an order from the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission finding a violation of section 17(a)(2) of the 
     Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77q(a)(2)).

  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 743, the gentleman from California and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is being raised to raise 
awareness of a very unjust situation. My amendment would ban Federal 
funding for debt forgiveness to any entity that has been subject to an 
order finding a violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
  This is timely because there was a hearing yesterday in the Committee 
on Natural Resources that included two bills that would affirm a 
drainage settlement between the United States and Westlands Water 
District. This settlement would award Federal forgiveness to Westlands, 
which has violated such an SEC order.
  These agreements matter because they will result in a $300 million 
taxpayer giveaway. They also fail to address or solve the extreme water 
pollution these irrigation districts discharge into the San Joaquin 
River and California delta estuary.
  These settlement agreements do not require enough land retirements 
and provide more access to water, further draining the delta, and there 
are no real performance standards or oversight if pollution runoff is 
mismanaged.
  Considering recent news of the SEC fining Westlands due to its 
conduct in misleading investors about its financial health, the lack of 
specific performance standards and enforcement tools makes the current 
settlement terms even more questionable.
  My amendment will ban the government from funding the debt 
forgiveness of these agreements not only because these agreements are 
bad for California, but no entity should have Federal debt forgiveness 
when they have violated Federal laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used for the Energy Information Administration.
       (b) The amount otherwise made available by this Act for 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy Information 
     Administration'' is hereby reduced to $0.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit any funding from 
going to the Energy Information Administration, which under this bill 
is set to receive $122 million in taxpayer money.
  Mr. Chairman, rule XXI of the House rules prohibits funding programs 
that are not authorized under law. The authorization process is so 
important because it gives Congress the ability to set each agency's 
agenda, provide proper oversight, and ensure the agency is fulfilling 
the mission it was designed by Congress to meet.
  Nearly one-third of the Federal discretionary spending goes to 
programs whose mandate to exist has expired. In this bill, we will fund 
28 programs that have expired authorizations, many which expired in the 
1980s. One program that we are funding has existed since the 1970s, but 
has never been authorized by Congress.
  The Energy Information Administration, which this amendment would 
block funding for, is one of the worst offenders. Its authorization 
expired in 1984, over 30 years ago. That means that the last time this 
agency received proper congressional instructions, oversight, and 
review, the Los Angeles Raiders had won the Super Bowl, Ronald Reagan 
was in the White House, and ``Ghostbusters'' was in the theaters.
  The Energy Information Administration has seen its fair share of 
challenges since it was last authorized. In fact, a few years ago The 
Wall Street Journal wrote an article about how errors by the EIA caused 
a significant jump in oil prices. The same story noted that the agency 
was vulnerable to hacking and that information could be easily 
compromised, yet this body has not acted on an authorization.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't question that there may be some important 
functions performed by this agency, but at some point we must have 
accountability in the authorization process. If my amendment is 
approved, we can send a message as a House that we are serious about 
fiscal discipline and demand that, if a program is worthy to receive 
taxpayer funds, it should be authorized by the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this is kind of a hard one because I have 
to tell you, in all honesty, I agree with the gentleman. There are too 
many programs that are not authorized. Unfortunately, it is not the 
Committee on Appropriations' responsibility. It is the authorizing 
committees that haven't been doing their job.
  It is not the EIA's fault that they are not reauthorized. It is that 
Congress has not done their job in reauthorizing them. As the gentleman 
has stated, there are many, many programs throughout. I think the whole 
Department of State is up for reauthorization and hasn't been 
reauthorized.
  The gentleman is absolutely right. We need to do something about 
that. We have been debating and discussing how exactly you do that. We 
have had various proposals. In fact, members of our Conference are 
looking at it now. I know Mr. McClintock is very interested in doing 
this. We have talked about it several times. We are trying to find some 
way to force the authorizing committees to actually do their job and do 
the reauthorizations that are necessary.
  But I rise to oppose this amendment. The amendment proposes to 
eliminate funding for the Energy Information Administration, a semi-
independent agency that collects, analyzes, and disseminates impartial 
energy statistics and information to the Nation. The EIA performs 
essential work for understanding the electricity generation and energy 
consumption in the complex energy markets that make up our Nation. The 
EIA provides a statistical and informational service to the private 
sector that the private sector would not.

[[Page 7383]]

  Eliminating this funding would immediately impact the ability to 
perform energy policy and would remove essential reports on the energy 
market. Eliminating the EIA would have virtually no effect on the total 
spending in this bill, but would negatively impact our ability to make 
energy policies.
  I must oppose this amendment, although I sympathize with what the 
gentleman is trying to do. I would be willing to work with him and any 
others who are willing to work with a way to force the authorizing 
committees to do the authorizations that should be being redone or the 
reauthorizations that should being redone.
  The reason things expire and the reason they need to be reauthorized 
is because you need to look to see if they are doing what we intended 
when we enacted them. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. 
Sometimes they need be modified. Sometimes they need to be amended. But 
if we don't get back to reauthorizing them, that never happens, and 
that is our fault, Congress' fault.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I appreciate the chairman yielding to me. I agree with 
his opposition to this amendment.
  Why blame one of the best parts of our government, in my opinion, for 
Congress not doing its job? I am always impressed with the Energy 
Information Administration. Their data is stellar. They are 
professionally run. The business community looks to them. Frankly, the 
global energy community looks to them.
  I think the amendment is shortsighted and would eliminate one of the 
best, most important sources of information that guides all of our 
decisions. They are so precise. The data that they present also can be 
easily understood. They have maps. They have charts. They have 
continuous data over a number of years.
  I think the gentleman wants to solve a problem, but I think that one 
could say that this amendment might be penny wise and pound foolish 
because, if you have had any experience with the Energy Information 
Administration, you know how excellent they really are and their work 
is.
  We depend on it in order to make solid decisions to save money or to 
make decisions that are sound rather than unsound. Don't rip the heart 
out of one of the most important administrations that we have at the 
Federal level on the energy front.
  I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I would urge that this amendment be defeated.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Let me just explain that this is something that I have 
been trying to find a solution to for a number of years. When I was 
chairman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee--this has been like 4 years ago--the 
Endangered Species Act had not been reauthorized for 23 years at the 
time. It is like 27 years now that it has not been reauthorized. We 
brought down the Interior appropriation bill, and we put no money in it 
for endangered species listing or for critical habitat designation, and 
the intent was to force the Committee on Natural Resources to do a 
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.

                              {time}  1945

  The individual who was supporting me the most was the then-chairman 
of the Natural Resources Committee. Well, of course, we lost an 
amendment because nobody wants to eliminate all the funding for the 
Endangered Species Act. But the gentleman that supported me the most 
was the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee at the time, who 
had the ability and authority to go do a reauthorization of the 
Endangered Species Act, but didn't do it. And it still hasn't been 
done.
  It is frustrating. I want to work with anybody in this body that is 
willing to try to find a way to put pressure on the committees to do 
their job.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I 
accept his offer. I look forward to working with him. We have got to 
start somewhere, and this is a good place to start.
  I heard the gentlewoman's remarks. The Wall Street Journal reported 
that this agency caused an increase in oil prices by one of its 
malfunctions. So I don't think it is quite a perfect agency as she made 
it out to be. This is a point that we need to make. And I intend to 
continue to make this point as we go through the appropriations 
process.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The amendment was rejected.


       Amendment Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York

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

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

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 13672 of July 
     21, 2014 (``Further Amendments to Executive order 11478, 
     Equal Employment in the Federal Government, and Executive 
     Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity'').

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, last week, I came 
to the floor to offer an amendment to preserve basic workplace 
protections for LGBT Americans. My amendment would have kept taxpayer 
dollars from going to government contractors who discriminate against 
LGBT employees. That is it. It said you cannot take taxpayer dollars 
and fire people just for being gay.
  There are 28 million Americans working for employers who receive 
taxpayer dollars, and simple math will tell you millions would have 
been protected from arbitrary firing. So it made sense, it was fair, 
and it deserved a fair vote.
  When the vote was held, a bipartisan majority of this House, 
including 36 members of the majority party, supported my amendment. 
That tally clock right there showed 217 ``yes'' votes--4 more than the 
213 needed that day to pass. With all time expired, it was clear as can 
be that equality had won the vote.
  But when the world watched, something else happened. Something 
shameful happened. Something about sticking up for basic workplace 
fairness for LGBT Americans rankled certain people around here.
  Even though my amendment simply would have applied the same standard 
to LGBT employees that we have long applied when people are fired 
because of their race or gender or religion or disability, it simply 
was too much. Even though we would have preserved time-honored 
religious exemptions, it was too much. Something about treating LGBT 
people fairly just wouldn't do.
  So people went to work. Even though all Members had voted, strangely, 
the expired clock stayed up four times longer than it should have. The 
gavel did not fall. And as we all watched, the tally began to change: 
217, 216, 215. The votes in support were dropping. Members of this 
House were changing their votes. Why? From being in support of 
fairness, they were now changing them to be opposed to it.
  Down the vote went, 214, 213, and yet no one came to the well, as is 
customary, to announce their vote. It was all in secret, happening out 
of sight, so no one might see the ugly reality of what was happening.
  And what happened? Well, when it hit 212, one vote shy of the 
majority it needed to pass--one vote shy of the majority it had a few 
moments earlier--the gavel came down and the result was declared. A 
defeat.
  It was a shameful exercise, made more shameful in that it took place 
on a civil rights vote that enjoyed a bipartisan majority of support in 
this House. From Portland, Maine, to Des

[[Page 7384]]

Moines, Iowa, to southeast Oregon, to Bakersfield, California, 
newspaper editorial boards, radio hosts, and ordinary citizens joined a 
chorus that was heard first on this floor. ``Shame,'' they said. Shame 
on those who would betray the will of this House, who would betray this 
vote, and shame on anyone who would rig this vote and rig our 
democracy.
  Shame on those who snatched discrimination from the jaws of equality, 
especially those ``Switching Seven'' who, having at first voted for 
fairness, allowed themselves to be dragged backward into voting for 
discrimination.
  On Friday, at a meeting of my Veterans' Advisory Board back home, I 
spoke to decorated military heroes and civilians who have dedicated 
their lives to the service of this country. To a person, they were 
outraged by what happened on the floor of this House.
  One member of the group, Edie, who served as a first lieutenant and 
combat medic in Vietnam, said when she heard about the rigged vote, she 
thought of her daughter, who right now is serving her country in the 
military. And Edie's daughter is a lesbian.
  Edie said:

       When my daughter finishes her active military service, she 
     will enter the civilian workforce--perhaps for a government 
     contractor, as so many vets do. Will they be able to fire 
     her, even though she and I are both veterans?

  Mr. Chairman, does Edie's service in combat count for anything here? 
Does her daughter's service right now to this country count for 
anything here?
  Her daughter isn't alone. There are 71,000 Active Duty LGBT 
servicemen and -women right now and over 1 million LGBT veterans. 
Making it easier to fire LGBT Americans, even LGBT veterans, isn't 
honoring our values. It is sacrificing them to preserve a worn out and 
dying prejudice that weakens our Nation rather than strengthening it.
  So, today, I want to thank Speaker Ryan for allowing an open process 
so that I can offer my amendment again. It is through this open process 
that we can give our colleagues another chance--a second chance--to do 
the right thing and to stand for equality.
  Let us this time ensure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to 
discriminate against hardworking Americans simply because of who they 
are, simply because of who they love. And we will also reaffirm 
legitimate religious exemptions that the President also included in his 
executive orders on this subject.
  Discrimination has no place in our law. It does not make our water 
cleaner. It does not power our homes. It doesn't defeat ISIS. It 
doesn't support our veterans.
  Every American deserves the right to work, support a family, and 
achieve the American Dream, regardless of who they are or who they 
love.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up to discrimination and adopt my 
amendment to the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.


Amendment Offered by Mr. Pitts to Amendment Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick 
                          Maloney of New York

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In the section proposed to be added, insert before the 
     period at the end the following: ``, except as required by 
     the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I 
     of the Constitution''.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and 
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes on the amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this perfecting 
amendment to my colleague's amendment.
  This amendment is very simple. It would merely state that, as the 
Federal Government spends money with regard to contracting, the 
administration must not run afoul of the First Amendment, the 14th 
Amendment, or Article I of the Constitution.
  The President's executive order referred to in the Maloney amendment 
defines a law that was never defined by Congress. It violates the equal 
protection rights of individuals who are merely seeking work from the 
government.
  With this amendment, this Congress can help ensure that, while funds 
may be going out the door to implement this policy, he must respect 
Congress' authority to write the law, respect an individual's right to 
exercise his or her religion, and respect their rights to work.
  Does anyone in this Chamber seriously oppose Article I of the 
Constitution, the First Amendment, or the 14th Amendment?
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Constitution and 
limiting the damaging effects of this executive order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I have the 
amendment read back? Does it include only the First Amendment, the 14th 
Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause?
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment to the amendment 
will be reported.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk reported the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask 
my colleague what is meant by Article I of the Constitution, if he 
could clarify that for us.
  No one who supports my amendment--certainly, not I--has any problem 
with the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, particularly the Equal 
Protection Clause, or with Article I of the Constitution, I assure the 
gentleman.
  I also, however, would note--and I am sure the gentleman would 
appreciate--that many times throughout American history, Presidents, 
under their authority under the Constitution, have acted in the area of 
workplace discrimination, particularly in the executive branch.
  For example, would the gentleman oppose President Truman's action to 
integrate the armed services? Perhaps he would like that order to be 
circumscribed in some way, if he thinks that violates Article I of the 
Constitution, the 14th Amendment, or the First Amendment to the 
Constitution?
  In other words, the President has, throughout American history, under 
his constitutional authority, taken actions to widen the circle of 
opportunity and to end discrimination in the executive branch.
  Nothing in my amendment is in any way at odds with the Constitution 
of the United States or the amendments thereto, but it should not be 
allowed to go unchallenged on the floor of this House to suggest that 
President Obama, in his executive action in 2014, ran afoul of any of 
those things either.
  Indeed, I am unaware of any legal challenge to the President's action 
in those executive orders of 2014. It is pretty clear to me that, if 
there was something illegal or unconstitutional about them, there would 
have been a challenge.
  I don't think anybody seriously contests the President's authority to 
do what he did in 2014, and many Americans welcome it as one of the 
signature equal protection actions by a Commander in Chief or by a 
President of the United States.
  So, far from being concerned about reconciling our activities with 
the Constitution, we believe they are perfectly consistent. Therefore, 
I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing to also include, since 
we are so fond of the Constitution, Article II of the Constitution 
which specifies the powers of the President?
  If the gentleman would answer that question.
  In other words, if we are so fond of the Constitution, what do you 
say we

[[Page 7385]]

follow the whole thing, including the Civil War amendments, including 
some of the things about equal protection and due process. You might 
have heard something about that. We had a little bit dispute about that 
in the mid-19th century.
  What do you say we abide by the whole Constitution; the part that 
tries to make it more progressive, more inclusive of people like me, of 
people of color, of women, of people who are shut out when it was 
written?
  How about we include the whole Constitution? Can we do that?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will address his remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, how about we 
include the whole Constitution? Can we do that?
  Hearing no objection, I assume we are including the entire 
Constitution, including the powers of the President under Article II.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has yielded back 
his time.
  Therefore, the gentleman from New York is recognized on the amendment 
to the amendment.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, how much time do 
I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Well, then, let me just say 
again, the point of today's vote is to redo a mistake that was made in 
this House.

                              {time}  2000

  But of course it wasn't really a mistake, was it?
  It was an effort to change the outcome of a bipartisan majority 
supporting an amendment to end discrimination in Federal contracting.
  So today, what we are doing is getting a second bite at that apple, 
giving Members a chance to vote their conscience, to do the right 
thing, free from any pressure, free from any vote swapping or 
switching, free from a clock being held open long after it should have 
closed.
  The American people want to know if their government is on the level, 
so let's have this vote on the level. We know there is a bipartisan 
majority for equality in this House, and, if allowed a fair vote, we 
know what the outcome will be. I look forward to that vote, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order on the amendment to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I associate 
myself with Congressman Maloney's remarks. Workplace discrimination is 
a crime that we, as lawmakers, have long sought to mitigate.
  I have to say I admire him for his courage, for his eloquence, and 
for being here this evening.
  I yield to the gentleman from New York in order to complete his 
statement.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it 
perfectly clear that we stand here as servants of the Constitution, all 
of us, and all of the actions we take here are subject to that 
beautiful document, as amended.
  So there is nothing about the gentleman's amendment, to the extent 
that it simply restates what is obvious which is that all of our 
actions are subject to the Constitution, that we would object to.
  My only point is simply that we need to read it as a whole document. 
We don't need to read anything into it. We can read the text. We can 
understand the history of the text. We can understand the global and 
expansive nature of the language written into the Constitution after 
the searing experience of the Civil War around equal protection, around 
due process.
  We don't fear the Constitution; we welcome it. We embrace it. We 
claim it as our own when we come to this floor and ask that the circle 
of opportunity be widened for others who have been excluded before.
  We think that is in the best tradition of the American Constitution. 
We believe the Constitution provides a series of promises that, as King 
said, it is a promissory note and that a check was written; we are 
coming to cash it so we will all be treated equally, so we will all be 
treated fairly, that we all count. Regardless of who we love, 
regardless of the color of our skin, whether we walk in or roll in, we 
believe we all count. And we believe that the Constitution enshrines 
those values in the most beautiful way in all of human history.
  So, far from being concerned in any way by the gentleman's amendment, 
we welcome it.
  But let it not detract from the fact that what happened in this House 
was an effort to enshrine and rationalize discrimination under Federal 
law. And despite the success we had in defeating that with a bipartisan 
majority, there were those here who wanted to perpetuate discrimination 
at the expense of equality.
  That is inconsistent with the Constitution, Mr. Chairman.
  And let that be the final word on this.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, let me just end by saying, this country has 
a long and storied history of supporting civil rights and worker 
rights, and that spirit was clearly violated last week during the vote 
on the spending bill.
  We know that businesses should operate under strict rules of fairness 
and equality, and, certainly, the Federal Government should.
  I am just grateful that we could all be here this evening and try to 
find a way to move America forward and to make progress, not just for 
the people of this country, but for humankind.
  This amendment will ensure that we are able to achieve a fully 
equitable workplace and society.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time having expired on the amendment to the 
amendment, does any Member seek time in opposition to the first-degree 
amendment offered by Representative Maloney?
  If not, the Chair will put the question on the amendment to the 
amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney), as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. 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 New York, as 
amended, will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in contravention of--
       (1) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.);
       (2) Executive Order 13279; or
       (3) sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(e)(2)), or 
     section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42

[[Page 7386]]

     U.S.C. 12113(d)), with respect to any religious corporation, 
     religious association, religious educational institution, or 
     religious society.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, unlike our European forebears, the Framers 
made clear that our Nation would have no state church. Instead, under 
the First Amendment, all will be protected in the free exercise of the 
religion of their choosing, and we have a proud tradition of 
conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, working together 
to protect this free exercise right.
  In the 1963 case of Sherbert v. Verner, the liberal Justice William 
Brennan mandated that any government intrusion into one's free exercise 
must meet the most stringent standard of judicial review, strict 
scrutiny.
  It was actually the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote the 
1990 opinion in Employment Division v. Smith that rolled back the 
protections of Sherbert.
  Fortunately, 3 years later, a Democrat Congress and a Democrat 
President, Bill Clinton, rallied large, bipartisan majorities to 
legislatively overturn Smith in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 
otherwise known as RFRA, and restores strict scrutiny when the 
government seeks to invade the free exercise of religion.
  RFRA had 170 cosponsors. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) were original cosponsors. 
It passed by a voice vote in the House and 97-3 in the Senate.
  On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 11478 
banning Federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual 
orientation and gender identity in hiring.
  Unfortunately, despite our broad history of working together to 
protect the free exercise right, the President refused to provide 
conscience protections for religious-based organizations who engage in 
government contracting.
  This amendment would clarify that existing religious freedom 
protection already in law under the RFRA, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and President Bush's 
Executive Order 13279 would apply, irrespective of the amendment 
offered by Mr. Maloney.
  We can debate the merits of Executive Order 11478; however, we should 
have no problem ensuring that religious entities still enjoy the 
protections of the free exercise of religion.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a copy of the amendment in 
front of me, but from what I have listened to the gentleman, it sounds 
like discrimination in the guise of religious freedom, and I would hope 
that isn't what the gentleman intends.
  I have just been given language: ``None of the funds made available 
by this Act shall be used in contravention of the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act.''
  I don't have full confidence that the equal protection of the laws 
for the faith-based community are fully considered in this amendment, 
and I would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I want to make very clear that my amendment 
says not one single thing about discrimination. It talks about 
religious freedom.
  We treat religious freedom sometimes in this country like it is a 
secondary right. It is not. It is a fundamental right. And what my 
amendment does is make sure that people of religious conscience still 
have that freedom.
  So, far from being discrimination, it makes sure that we have 
freedoms for people that they have had for over 200 years; under the 
1964 Civil Rights Act, for over 50 years; under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, for over 25 years; and under RFRA, for over 20 years.
  This is not new. This is not novel. This is settled law. We are 
making sure we protect people here. This has nothing to do with 
discrimination.
  I know that some people would like to wipe out the effect of church, 
the effect of religion, the effect of faith in the public square in 
America. But that is not what our Constitution is about, and I think 
this House should stand up for religious freedom for everybody.
  So I ask that everybody in this House vote for this very important 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  2015


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Higgins

  Mr. HIGGINS. 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 by the Secretary of Energy to carry out, or for the 
     salary of any officer or employee of the Department of Energy 
     to carry out, the proposed action of the Department to 
     transport target residue material from Ontario, Canada to the 
     United States, described in the supplement analysis entitled 
     ``Supplement Analysis for the Foreign Research Reactor Spent 
     Nuclear Fuel Acceptance Program'', issued by the Department 
     in November 2015 (DOE/EIS-0218-SA-07).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and 
Ranking Member Kaptur for their work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the shipment of dangerous, 
highly radioactive liquid nuclear waste, which the Department of Energy 
plans to begin shipping by truck later this year in a series of over 
100 shipments from Ontario, Canada, to South Carolina.
  The department wants to transport this liquid waste, which is far 
more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel, across the northern border at 
the Peace Bridge and through downtown Buffalo.
  In contrast to spent nuclear fuel in solid form, which has a history 
of being shipped by land, this would constitute the first ever shipment 
of liquid nuclear waste by truck in a transportation cask that was 
never certified for this purpose. Its liquid form, if spilled, could 
make containment nearly impossible.
  The route crosses the Great Lakes, across the busiest passenger 
crossing at the northern border, and through a high-density 
metropolitan area. In the event of an attack or an accident, the 
consequences could be devastating.
  In spite of these concerns, the Department of Energy failed to comply 
with the National Environmental Policy Act by not commencing with a new 
Environmental Impact Statement, instead, relying on old, outdated 
information.
  The evolving threat picture since 9/11 requires that the Department 
of Energy reassess the manner in which it ships such dangerous 
materials.
  Proceeding with the shipments would also ignore the will of the 
House, which unanimously passed legislation requiring the Department of 
Homeland Security perform a terrorism threat assessment regarding the 
transportation of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological 
materials through the United States.

[[Page 7387]]

  To reiterate, my bill would only impact one type of nuclear waste 
shipment, and other shipments of spent nuclear fuel would not be 
affected.
  I urge support for my amendment, which would prohibit these shipments 
until the Department of Energy performs a full and thorough review 
process. Proceeding without doing so would seriously compromise public 
safety.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Huizenga of Michigan). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of 
     its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of 
     its principals:
       (A) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 
     (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation 
     of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the 
     submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, 
     forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, 
     making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal 
     criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
       (B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated above in subsection (A); or
       (C) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to other 
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every 
appropriations bill considered under an open rule during the 113th and 
114th Congresses. The amendment simply expands the list of parties with 
whom the Federal Government is prohibited from contracting due to 
serious misconduct on the part of the contractors.
  I hope that this amendment remains noncontroversial.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 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 by this Act may 
     be made available to enter into new contracts with, or new 
     agreements for Federal assistance to, the Islamic Republic of 
     Iran.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, 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 rise in strong support of my amendment to 
prohibit any contracts or Federal assistance to the Islamic Republic of 
Iran from being funded in this Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill.
  As a result of this recent nuclear deal, Iran is now cleared to 
receive up to $150 billion in assets that should have never made its 
way back to the Ayatollahs.
  Iran is the world's leading State sponsor of terrorism. Any dollar 
sent to Iran's government is a dollar sent to a brutal, apocalyptic, 
and dangerous regime that routinely flouts international norms, 
threatens to wipe Israel off the map, captures and humiliates our U.S. 
sailors, flagrantly violating Geneva Convention rules, and is 
responsible for the murders of hundreds of United States soldiers.
  Passage of this amendment will wipe the slate clean of any potential 
for money from the hardworking taxpayers in my district and from across 
the United States of America to go to Iran. No money for contracts to 
buy their heavy water, no money for their so-called civilian nuclear 
power program. Let's not get fooled again like we did with North Korea.
  The Iran deal was only given an ``aye'' vote by 162 Members of this 
House--a very small total. The President may have lifted the sanctions 
that Congress passed in 2010, but there is no reason that we cannot 
take this step to show Iran and the world that we are serious about 
putting them back in place for their flagrant violations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and want to begin 
by saying that ideological riders have no place on appropriation bills, 
certainly on this bill, and, frankly, I don't believe that this is even 
germane to the Energy and Water Development bill.
  This amendment is just the first of many possible attempts to tie the 
hands of the administration from implementing an extremely important 
international agreement that will result in exactly the opposite of 
what the gentleman infers.
  The plan of action that was agreed to by several countries, P5+1, 
closed the four pathways through which Iran could get to a nuclear 
weapon in less than a year. We do not gain anything by putting 
limitations on United States' ability to engage or monitor Iran's 
compliance with the agreement. The President has repeatedly said that 
he will continue to take aggressive steps to counter any activities in 
violation of existing sanctions, and this includes restrictions on 
certain nuclear-related transfers, conventional arms, and ballistic 
missile items, certain asset freezes and travel bans, as well as cargo 
inspections.
  Today, international inspectors are on the ground, and Iran is being 
subjected to the most comprehensive, intrusive inspection regime ever 
negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. Inspectors will remain to 
monitor Iran's key nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 
For decades to come, inspectors will have access to Iran's entire 
nuclear supply chain. That is an incredible achievement.
  The Department of Energy's vast expertise in the nuclear fuel cycle, 
nuclear safeguards and security, and nuclear materials plays a critical 
role in informing and ensuring that Iran is meeting its nuclear 
commitments.
  To date, experts at the Department of Energy headquarters, seven 
national laboratories, and two Department of Energy nuclear sites have 
been actively involved in reaching and now implementing the agreement. 
These experts will continue to support the International Atomic Energy 
Agency's monitoring and verification activities worldwide and are vital 
as the United States works with our P5+1 and European Union partners to 
ensure viability into Iran's nuclear program.
  Why would we proactively cut off our nonproliferation program and 
experts from working to prevent Iran to achieve nuclear weapons? Isn't 
that counter to our own national security interests?
  In other words, if Iran tries to cheat, if they try to build a bomb 
covertly, we will catch them, the world will catch them, unless we here 
in Congress undo these efforts and adopt amendments such as the one we 
are discussing now.
  The bottom line is this: Iran was steadily expanding its nuclear 
program. The agreement has now cut off every single path to build a 
bomb.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this harmful amendment and encourage my 
colleagues to oppose as well.

[[Page 7388]]

  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 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __ (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 13547 of 
     July 19, 2010.
       (b) None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to implement, administer, or enforce section 506 of this 
     Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I, along with Representatives Cicilline, 
Farr, Langevin, Keating, Beyer, and Peters have introduced an amendment 
to clarify that the National Ocean Policy is a critical multiagency 
action that should be implemented.
  Mr. Chair, my district is a poster child for the need for ocean 
coordination and information sharing between local, State, and Federal 
Governments, and the military, ports, shippers, energy developers, 
recreational users, and other stakeholders. I know firsthand that we 
can have a thriving ocean economy and at the same time protect and 
conserve our precious ocean resources.
  For example, the Port of Long Beach is the second busiest port in the 
United States in my district, moving $140 billion in goods, supporting 
1.4 million jobs in the United States.
  Offshore oil platforms extract crude oil in San Pedro Bay less than a 
mile from my front door. San Clemente Island in my district has a Navy 
training ground and a ship-to-shore firing range. Nearby waters are 
home to seabirds, fisheries, and migrating whales. Sea level rise and 
extreme weather threaten neighborhoods and businesses all along my 
district and the entire coast of California.
  With so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the 
Navy at the table when NOAA is working on siting of a new aquaculture 
installation. It makes sense to have the fishery management council 
weigh in when oil rigs are being decommissioned, and it is a no-brainer 
that NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the ports all work together to get 
these massive ships in and out of port safely.
  We want these collaborations to happen because we want to have a 
sustainable ocean economy, and by developing regional plans and having 
a framework for multi-stakeholder involvement, we can streamline this 
process and promote a robust ocean economy that also conserves our 
precious ocean resources.
  The country and my district need a comprehensive approach to our 
ocean resources, which the National Ocean Policy provides.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, while there may be instances in which 
greater coordination would be helpful in ensuring our ocean and coastal 
resources are available to future generations, any such coordination 
must be done carefully to protect against Federal overreach.

                              {time}  2030

  As we have seen recently with the proposed rule to redefine waters of 
the United States, strong congressional oversight is needed to ensure 
that we protect private property rights.
  Unfortunately, the way the administration developed its National 
Ocean Policy, it increases the opportunities for overreach. The 
implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping, that it may allow the 
Federal Government to effect agricultural practices, mining, energy 
producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact 
on the oceans.
  The fact is the administration did not work with Congress to develop 
this plan and has even refused to provide relevant information to 
Congress, so we can't be sure how sweeping it actually will be. That is 
why I support the language in the underlying bill and, therefore, 
oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, there is an agreement among all of us 
that there needs to be more coordination among all of the stakeholders 
to make smart decisions about our ocean resources. However, many on the 
other side of the aisle oppose the National Ocean Policy on the grounds 
that, as we have just heard, it is overreach, which is authorized by an 
executive order of a President that they don't like.
  To me, this seems petty. National Ocean Policy is not a failed policy 
like some suggest, nor is it an instance of executive overreach. It is 
merely a commonsense way to facilitate multistakeholder collaboration 
on complex ocean issues, and it promotes economic opportunity, national 
security, and environmental protection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Meadows

  Mr. MEADOWS. 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 spent by the Army Corps of Engineers to award contracts 
     using the lowest price technically acceptable source 
     selection process unless the source selection decision is 
     documented and such documentation includes the rationale for 
     any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the 
     source selection authority, including benefits associated 
     with additional costs.

  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The night is getting 
long, and the committee has done some great work on the underlying 
bill.
  This amendment is a commonsense amendment, one meant to provide 
transparency as it relates to the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
awarding of contracts. When they actually award a technically 
acceptable lowest bid, the rationale and the other transparency 
documents would actually be reported that no funds could be extended 
except for those express purposes.
  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. Meadows).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 for 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be 
     used in contravention of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member, 
Ms. Kaptur, her staff, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Simpson, and staff and others because they have been working hard.

[[Page 7389]]

  I want to emphasize that this is an amendment that was approved and 
adopted in an identical form on April 29, 2015, during the 114th 
Congress, as an amendment to H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water 
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  I do this amendment because I do believe it is extremely important. 
If you travel around this country, whether it is Silicon Valley, 
whether it is NASA, whether it is dealing with energy resources, 
renewable and otherwise, you realize the importance of science, 
technology, engineering, and math.
  Twenty years ago, Mr. Chairman, on February 11, 1994, President 
Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing Federal agencies to 
identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-
income populations.
  The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access to these 
opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including 
minorities, Native Americans, and women. We need professionals in these 
areas to be able to assess the various impacts, environmental impacts, 
on the minority community. But, more importantly, we also need our 
organizations, such as Historically Black Colleges and other colleges, 
to make sure to include opportunities for minority and women students. 
They make up 70 percent of college students, but only 45 percent of 
undergraduate STEM degree holders.
  This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of 
STEM professionals. As the Nation's demographics change, I think it is 
imperative that we emphasize in the various Federal agencies that we 
need to provide and extend opportunities for minorities in science, 
technology, engineering, and math.
  Earlier today, I had the opportunity to visit with Scott Kelly. One 
would call him the miracle astronaut, spending over 300 days on the 
International Space Station. The International Space Station was the 
entity built some years ago when I was on the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee. But to realize that a human being tested himself 
to stay, an American making history. I believe science, technology, 
engineering, and math commemorates and celebrates the giant work of 
Scott Kelly, but it produces more Scott Kellys.
  I applaud Energy Secretary Moniz's commitment, which will increase 
the Nation's economic competitiveness and enable more of our people to 
realize their full potential.
  I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment, as it has been 
supported in the past, to again, through this legislation, emphasize 
the importance of science, technology, engineering, and math.
  I ask support for the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to describe my amendment, 
which simply provides that: ``None of the funds made available by this 
Act for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science' may be used in 
contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 
7101 et seq.).''
  This amendment was approved and adopted in identical form on April 
29, 2015, during the 114th Congress as an amendment to H.R. 2028, the 
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Act of 2016.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur 
for their stewardship in bringing this legislation to the floor and for 
their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and 
resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
  Mr. Chair, twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton 
issued Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify 
and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income 
populations.
  The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access in these 
opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including 
minorities, Native Americans, and women.
  Mr. Chair, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college 
students, but only 45 percent of undergraduate STEM degree holders.
  This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of 
STEM professionals.
  As the nation's demographics are shifting and now most children under 
the age of one are minorities, it is critical that we close the gap in 
the number of minorities who seek STEM opportunities.
  I applaud the Energy Secretary Moniz's commitment which will increase 
the nation's economic competitiveness and enable more of our people to 
realize their full potential.
  Mr. Chair, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to be 
solved--and perhaps one of these days a minority engineer or biologist 
will come-up with some of the solutions.
  The larger point is that we need more STEM educators and more 
minorities to qualify for them.
  The energy and science education programs funded in part by this bill 
will help ensure that members of underrepresented communities are not 
placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environmental 
sustainability, preservation, and health.
  Through education about the importance of environmental 
sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and 
how citizens can improve their surroundings.
  Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also 
benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, 
and other related subjects.
  The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority 
institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
  The DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM 
fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find 
employment.
  With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can increase 
diversity, provide clean energy options to our most underserved 
communities, and help improve their environments, which will yield 
better health outcomes and greater public awareness.
  But most importantly businesses will have more consumers to whom they 
may engage in related commercial activities.
  My amendment will help ensure that underrepresented communities are 
able to participate and contribute equitably in the energy and 
scientific future.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stivers

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which 
would prohibit the Department of Energy funding from being used for the 
Cape Wind offshore wind generation project in Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
  I offered this amendment in last year's appropriation, and it was 
adopted by a voice vote, so I believe it should be fairly 
noncontroversial. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Nearly 2 years ago, the Department of Energy offered conditional 
commitments for the Cape Wind project of a $150 million loan guarantee. 
Since that time, the project has been plagued by setbacks amid concerns 
about its impact on the environment, disruptions of safety for 
passenger aircraft, or just the high cost of electricity produced by 
the proposed facility. Last year, two of the State's utilities 
terminated contracts to purchase power from the wind farm, jeopardizing 
the viability of the project.
  I believe we should encourage the development of all forms of energy. 
Renewable sources like wind power are important for our Nation's energy 
portfolio.
  But this project, in particular, has a troubled history. This 
amendment seeks to ensure that the American taxpayers do not have to 
foot the bill if the project fails.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

[[Page 7390]]

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


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Corps of 
     Engineers-Civil--Investigations'', and increasing the amount 
     made available for the same account, by $3,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, allow me again to thank Mr. Simpson 
and Ms. Kaptur for their work on this energy and water bill that is so 
very important, and emphasize the importance of this legislation to 
many and all regions of the United States of America.
  My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers investigations account. Let me be very clear. It 
speaks to the general need for robust funding for the investigations 
account, and it speaks to it in terminology of redirecting $3 million 
for increased funding for postdisaster watershed assessment studies, 
like the one that is being contemplated for the Houston/Harris County 
metropolitan area. It does this to emphasize the importance of the 
investigations account, not to single out a particular project, but for 
describing a project, which I will take time to do.
  I am pleased that H.R. 5055 provides $120 million for the 
investigations account. This is very important to the Army Corps of 
Engineers. As a Federal agency that collects and studies basic 
information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 
conducts detailed studies, plans, and specifications for river and 
harbor, and flood and storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers plays a critical role in building, maintaining, and expanding 
the most critical of the Nation's infrastructure. We understand this 
very well in my home State of Texas and the 18th Congressional 
District.
  Over the last 2 years, Mr. Chairman, 2 years around the exact same 
time, we didn't have something called a hurricane. We had a heavy rain 
in April-May of 2015 and April of 2016. 2016 had 20 inches of rain, 
which was enormous. The damage was unbelievable.
  Let me cite for you the words from the Greater Houston Partnership 
that supports this amendment:
  ``Perhaps the most telling statistic of all: based on the 7,021 calls 
the United Way of Greater Houston has received through its 2-1-1 line, 
1,937 calls have been requests for `food replacement.'''
  The amount of money that was lost was $1.9 billion in damage during 
the weeks that followed the storm, which includes damage to homes, 
cars, schools, parks, churches, roadways, and other important elements 
of our infrastructure. This is what we faced in Houston, Texas.
  I am recounting that and indicating that we believe this 
investigations account is so very important. It will have the 
opportunity, through a $3 million study, to deal with the bayous that 
are located in the larger Houston/Harris County area: Sims Bayou, 
Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Clear 
Creek.
  Again, let me be very clear. As the Army Corps of Engineers works 
through their work study program, this investigations account will be 
enormously important.
  We have also received a letter from Members of the United States 
Congress supporting the study of all of the bayous in our community. We 
want to ensure that the account is robust to provide that possible 
opportunity.
  Let me indicate to my colleagues again, the investigations account is 
$120 million. We rise to support it. We also rise to acknowledge the 
need for the utilization of those funds all over America, and certainly 
in Houston/Harris County, Texas, and the surrounding counties, which 
will help us, through a study, have a better pathway to how we fix 
this, how do we not have this be Houston next year in 2017.
  Let me thank my colleagues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, 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. Chair, first, let me assure my colleague that I 
understand her interest in addressing the flooding risks in her 
district in Houston.
  Besides the fact that the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water bill 
includes a total of $13.3 million above the budget request for flood 
and storm damage reduction studies, the bill also allows for several 
new studies to be initiated, and the Corps could choose the study of 
interest to the gentlewoman as one of them.
  Since this amendment does not change the funding levels within the 
bill, I do not oppose the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has been absolutely 
unrelenting in her representation of Houston and of the serious 
situation that is faced there by the citizenry and leaders because of 
the flooding. What a tremendous voice she is for the people whom she 
represents. There isn't a time that I see her in the elevators or 
walking around that she doesn't ask me about this bill and about 
wanting to come down and amend it to make sure that it is sensitive to 
the needs of Houston. I just wanted to put that on the record.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman and the 
distinguished gentlewoman for their courtesies.
  I want the chairman to know that I have acknowledged in my written 
statement the funds that he has placed in the legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment 
as a very fine statement that contributes to this bill, to the people 
of the Nation, but also to the people of Texas and Houston.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur 
for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment 
to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that 
they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
  My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers ``Investigations'' account by redirecting $3 million 
for increases funding for post-disaster watershed assessment studies, 
like the one that is being contemplated for the Houston/Harris County 
metropolitan area.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased that H.R. 5055 provides $120 million for the 
Investigations account.
  As the federal agency that collects and studies basic information 
pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore 
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed 
studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor, and flood and 
storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer plays a 
critical role in the building, maintaining, and expanding the most 
critical of the nation's infrastructure.
  We understand this very well in my home state of Texas and the 
Eighteenth Congressional District that I represent.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the Harris County I 
Flood Control District since 1937 to reduce the risk of flooding within 
Harris County.
  Current projects include 6 federal flood risk management projects:
  1. Sims Bayou
  2. Greens Bayou

[[Page 7391]]

  3. Brays Bayou
  4. White Oak Bayou
  5. Hunting Bayou, and
  6. Clear Creek
  In addition to these ongoing projects, the Army Corps of Engineers 
operates and maintains the Addicks and Barker (A&B) Detention Dams in 
northwest Harris County.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased that the bill provides that the Secretary of 
the Army may initiate up to six new study starts during fiscal year 
2017, and that five of those studies are to consist studies where the 
majority of the benefits are derived from flood and storm damage 
reduction or from navigation transportation savings.
  I am optimistic that one of those new study starts will be the 
Houston Regional Watershed Assessment Flood Risk Management Feasibility 
study.
  Such a study is certainly needed given the frequency and severity of 
historic-level flood events in recent years in and around the Houston 
metropolitan area.
  On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in 
the Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several areas 
exceeding the 100 to 500 year flood event record.
  The areas that experienced these historic rain falls were west of 1-
45, north of I-10, and Greens Bayou.
  Additionally, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over the 
Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in just 14 hours.
  The purpose of the Houston Regional Watershed Assessment is to 
identify risk reduction measures and optimize performance from a multi-
objective systems performance perspective of the regional network of 
nested and intermingled watersheds, reservoir dams, flood flow 
conveyance channels, storm water detention basins, and related Flood 
Risk Management (FRM) infrastructure.
  Special emphasis of the study, which covers 22 primary watersheds 
within Harris County's 1,756 square miles, will be placed on extreme 
flood events that exceed the system capacity resulting in impacts to 
asset conditions/functions and loss of life.
  Mr. Chair, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,015 homes were 
flooded and 8 persons died; during the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400 
homes were flooded and 8 deaths recorded.
  The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at 
$3 billion; the 2016 estimate is being compiled and is estimated to be 
well above $2 billion.
  Mr. Chair, minimizing the risk of flood damage to the Houston and 
Harris County metropolitan area, the nation's 4th largest, is a matter 
of national significance because the region is one of the nation's 
major technology, energy, finance, export and medical centers:
  1. Port of Houston is the largest bulk port in the world;
  2. Texas Medical Center is a world renowned teaching, research and 
treatment center;
  3. Houston is home to the largest conglomeration of foreign bank 
representation and second only to New York City as home to the most 
Fortune 500 companies; and
  4. The Houston Watershed Assessment study area sits within major 
Hurricane Evacuation arteries for the larger Galveston Gulf Coast 
region.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment 
for the Environmental Justice Program.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                                      Greater Houston Partnership,
                                                     May 26, 2016.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Jackson Lee, as you know, on April 18, 
     2016, the Houston region experienced unprecedented rain and 
     flooding. According to an estimate prepared by BBVA Compass, 
     Houston experienced over $1.9 billion in damage during the 
     weeks that followed the storm, which includes damage to 
     homes, cars, schools, parks, churches, roadways and other 
     important elements of our infrastructure. For many, the 
     recent storms have affected every aspect of their quality of 
     life. Perhaps the most telling statistic of all: based on the 
     7,021 calls the United Way of Greater Houston has received 
     through its 2-1-1 line, 1,937 calls have been requests for 
     ``food replacement.''
       We greatly appreciate your leadership ensuring the Houston 
     area receives appropriate federal funding to help Houston 
     heal and make it more resilient in the future. To that end, 
     we are supportive of the requested $3 million for a study by 
     the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to investigate flood risk 
     management opportunities in the Houston metropolitan area by 
     analyzing the watersheds as a system of systems.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bob Harvey,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2016.
     Hon. Hal Rogers,
     Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nita Lowey,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations, Washington 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey: We write to 
     the Committee on Appropriations to allocate $3 million in the 
     FY 2016 supplemental funding for a 3 year study to be 
     conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers that will 
     investigate flood risk management opportunities in the 
     Houston metropolitan area by analyzing the watersheds as a 
     system of systems. This request for funding is based upon the 
     frequency and severity of flood events in and around the 
     Houston metropolitan area.
       An estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in the 
     Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several 
     areas exceeded the 100 to 500 year flood event record. The 
     records are based upon time period of rain fall, the location 
     of the rain fall, and the duration of the event over a 
     watershed. The areas that experienced these historic rain 
     falls were west of 1-45, north of I-10, and Greens Bayou. 
     Further, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over 
     the Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in 
     just 14 hours.
       The study we seek funding will identify risk reduction 
     measures and optimize performance from a multi-objective 
     systems performance perspective of the regional network of 
     nested and intermingled watersheds, reservoir dams, flood 
     flow conveyance channels, storm water detention basins, and 
     related Flood Risk Management (FRM) infrastructure. Special 
     emphasis will be placed on extreme flood events that exceed 
     the system capacity resulting in impacts to asset conditions/
     functions and loss of life.
       The study area includes 22 primary watersheds within the 
     county's 1,756 square miles, each having unique flooding 
     problems. These include Spring-Creek, Little Cypress Creek, 
     Willow Creek, Cypress Creek, Addicks, Barker, Buffalo Bayou, 
     Clear Creek, Sims Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Greens 
     Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Vince Bayou, Armand Bayou, Carpenters 
     Bayou, San Jacinto River, Jackson Bayou, Luce Bayou, Cedar 
     Bayou, Spring Gully and Goose Creek, and San Jacinto and 
     Galveston Bay Estuaries. The flooding problems in the 
     watershed are frequent, widespread, and severe, with projects 
     to reduce flood risks in place that are valued at several 
     billion dollars. Recent historical flooding in the region was 
     documented in 1979, 1980, 1983, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2001 
     (Tropical Storm Allison), 2006, 2007, 2008 (Hurricane Ike), 
     2015 and was most recently demonstrated during the 
     significant flooding, widespread damages, and losses of life 
     during the 12 hour flood event from April 17-18, 2016.
       The study will involve coordination with local, state and 
     federal stakeholders to comprehensively evaluate the life 
     safety, economic, and environmental impacts of potential 
     regional flooding, as well as land use that is managed by 
     local entities so future regional development is regulated to 
     avoid individual and cumulative impacts of the broad pattern 
     and rapid pace of development that contribute to poor FRM 
     systems performance.
       Thank you for your careful consideration of this request is 
     appreciated. If you have questions contact Glenn Rushing 
     [email protected] in Congresswoman Jackson Lee's 
     office.
         Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15), 
           Filemon Vela (TX-34), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30), 
           Marc Veasey (TX-33), Randy K. Weber (TX-14), Michael 
           McCaul (TX-10), Blake Farenthold (TX-27), Pete Olson 
           (TX-22), Gene Green (TX-29), Al Green (TX-09), Dan 
           Kildee (MI-05), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Henry Cuellar 
           (TX-28), Members of Congress.

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Mullin

  Mr. MULLIN. 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. __.  Beginning on November 8, 2016, through January 
     20, 2017, none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to propose or finalize a regulatory action that is 
     likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect on 
     the economy of $100,000,000 or more, as specified in section 
     3(f)(1) of Executive Order No. 12866 of September 30, 1993.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.

[[Page 7392]]


  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment to protect Americans from 
the costly regulations this administration or future administrations 
may try to issue before the President leaves office. My amendment would 
prohibit funds from being used to propose or to finalize any major 
regulation from November 8 to January 20 of next year.
  In the past, we have seen administrations issue politically motivated 
regulations between the day of the election and the day the new 
President takes office. In 2000 and in 2008, the number of midnight 
regulations issued was nearly double the average of non-midnight 
regulations. We expect this administration to maintain this practice, 
and with the nature of the regulations we have seen from the Federal 
agencies over the past 8 years, this amendment is more important than 
ever.
  I would like to briefly thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Walberg) for leading on this issue in the House.
  Let's hold the executive branch in check in its remaining days so 
that families and businesses across the country don't fall victim to 
unnecessary, burdensome regulations.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, this amendment is actually costly, 
inefficient, and it rolls back progress in a department that has really 
been experiencing tremendous leadership under Dr. Ernest Moniz.
  The Mullin amendment would stop the Department of Energy from 
proposing or finalizing any rule that may cost more than $100 million 
annually, the Congressman says. Mr. Chair, this is just another attempt 
to ensure that agencies are unable to enact important rules and 
regulations that protect consumers and benefit our Nation.
  What if that had been done back when the Clean Water Act was first 
passed?
  We would have had communities across this country pumping sewage into 
their kitchens.
  At the DOE alone, the Mullin amendment would stall 14 rules that are 
currently in progress, a third of which are consensus agreements that 
the DOE has worked with industry to finalize. The amendment would also 
waste valuable manpower and resources for both the DOE and the 
industries involved in these consensus agreements.
  This makes no sense. We need to move on with the business of America. 
Taking a myopic view of our Nation's regulatory practices is nothing 
new for this majority. Time and again, we have seen appropriation 
riders and authorizing legislation that only looks at the costs that 
are associated with agency rules and that completely ignores the 
associated benefits to our country. This amendment is no different.
  These proposals overlook the extensive review process that already 
exists for rules. For example, every new rule is already scrutinized up 
and down by numerous Federal agencies as well as by key stakeholders 
and the public through very, very extensive input that agencies seek. 
Let me explain.
  For economically significant rules, an agency must provide the Office 
of Management and Budget with an assessment and, to the extent 
possible, with a quantification of the benefits as well as of the costs 
of a proposed rule. In accordance with Executive Order No. 12866, the 
agency has to justify the costs associated with the rule, and these 
costs are justified with benefits, which is something the Mullin 
amendment appears to think doesn't exist, but that is simply false.
  For example, in his 2015 analysis of the estimated costs and benefits 
of significant Federal regulations, the OMB estimated that, over the 
last decade, the benefits of these rules outweighed the economic costs 
by nine to one--and that is OMB. These benefits have translated into 
real money for the American taxpayer.
  As a result of standards established by the DOE, a typical American 
household already saves over $200 a year on its energy bill. That comes 
in different forms. Whether it is a more efficient refrigerator or 
whether it is light bulbs or whether it is insulation, we all know the 
benefits.
  Besides economic benefits, these standards provide benefits to our 
environment and the well-being of our communities. The 40 new or 
updated standards issued by the DOE will assist in reducing carbon 
emissions by over 2 million metric tons through 2030, and will help 
this Nation curb climate change, which we all know threatens the health 
of our environment as well as of our communities.
  Republicans should stop trying to undermine the rulemaking process. 
They should stop ignoring the real-world benefits of these rules to 
society and the progress that we are making as a country.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, with respect to my colleague, I do want to 
point out that the Clean Water Act had absolutely nothing to do with 
pumping sewage into someone's house. It had to do with the direct 
discharge into navigable waters, like in Mississippi. It has nothing to 
do with what we are talking about or with what the gentlewoman brought 
up.
  Second of all, when the gentlewoman starts talking about its being 
costly, the last time I checked, the cost of living has skyrocketed due 
to the regulations, due to the amount of inflation that has been 
brought on by regulations and from the costs of doing business. As a 
businessowner, I well understand the costs.
  Through rulemaking, the legislators lose the ability to legislate, 
which is what our Founding Fathers had decided to do when they set up 
the legislative branch. We surrender that when we allow the executive 
branch to go crazy towards the end of the year to clean the slate of 
their last year in office. Let me give you some numbers.
  Under the Carter administration--this is how far I am going to go 
back, and don't think that this is a Republican thing or a Democrat 
thing. During the midnight hours of regulations, which is considered to 
be November 8 to January 20, the Carter administration issued 24,531 
pages of midnight regulations. The Reagan administration issued 14,584 
pages of midnight regulations. The Bush administration issued 20,148 
pages of midnight regulations. The Clinton administration issued 26,542 
pages of midnight regulations. Mind you, this is between the election 
in November until he leaves office in January. Bush: 21,251 pages.
  All I am saying is let's be the legislators our Founding Fathers set 
up, and let's not allow the executive branch to allow rulemaking to go 
on and bypass the legislative branch.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment so we can hold this administration accountable.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Corps of 
     Engineers-Civil--Construction'', and increasing the amount 
     made available for the same account, by $100,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, my previous amendment dealt with the 
Investigations account, which is the predecessor to the Construction 
account.

[[Page 7393]]

  Before I begin the discussion, let me say that I took to the floor of 
the House in May, after the floods occurred in Houston, and had a 
moment of silence for the eight people who had died in those floods. 
Mr. Chair, this was not a hurricane, and it was not a tornado. It was 
hard rain that caused individuals in their cars to drown. It was very, 
very tragic. Some going to work, some nurses, some students who were 
drowning in their cars. This is what it looked like in my district. It 
looked the same way in 2015 and again in 2016.
  The Construction account, for which I want to thank Ms. Kaptur and 
Mr. Simpson, has $1.94 billion. I believe the Construction account is 
very important to Members across the Nation. Certainly, it is important 
to the Houston-Harris County region, with other counties around. As the 
Federal agency that collects and studies basic information pertaining 
to river and harbor flood and storm damage and shore protection, this 
is important construction money that will be vital to preventing this 
kind of catastrophe--first a study, then the construction. The areas 
that may be impacted by the Army Corps' resources include Sims Bayou, 
Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Clear 
Creek Bayou. These are the areas that spilt over and caused the 
enormous damage.
  On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in 
the Houston area over a 12-hour period, which resulted in several areas 
exceeding the 100- to 500-year flood event. That is why these 
construction dollars are so important. The areas that experienced these 
historic rainfalls were west of I-45, north of I-10 and Greens Bayou--
my congressional district, among others.
  Finally, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,000 homes were flooded, 
and eight people died. During the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400 homes 
were flooded, and, again, eight deaths were recorded. As for my 
previous numbers, April 15, 2016, was when they had this constant 
rain--240 billion gallons. The economic damage caused by the 2015 
Houston flood is estimated at $3 billion.
  This Construction account is so very important. I ask my colleagues 
to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which is the broader view of how 
these dollars can be utilized to save lives, in particular in regions 
that I happen to live in, which is the Houston-Harris County area.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur 
for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment 
to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that 
they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
  My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers ``Construction'' account by redirecting $100 million 
for increased funding for critical construction projects, like those 
current and future projects proposed for the Houston/Harris County 
metropolitan area.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased that H.R. 5055 provides $1.945 billion for 
the Construction account.
  As the federal agency that collects and studies basic information 
pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore 
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed 
studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor, and flood and 
storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a 
critical role in building, maintaining, and expanding the most critical 
of the nation's infrastructure.
  We understand this very well in my home state of Texas and the 
Eighteenth Congressional District that I represent.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the Harris County 
Flood Control District since 1937 to reduce the risk of flooding within 
Harris County.
  Current projects include 6 federal flood risk management projects:
  1. Sims Bayou
  2. Greens Bayou
  3. Brays Bayou
  4. White Oak Bayou
  5. Hunting Bayou, and
  6. Clear Creek
  In addition to these ongoing projects, the Army Corps of Engineers 
operates and maintains the Addicks and Barker (A&B) Detention Dams in 
northwest Harris County.
  Such a study is certainly needed given the frequency and severity of 
historic-level flood events in recent years in and around the Houston 
metropolitan area. It is clear that much more needs to be done to 
minimize the vulnerability of the nation's 4th largest metropolitan 
area and economic engine from the flood damage.
  On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in 
the Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several areas 
exceeding the 100 to 500 year flood event record.
  The areas that experienced these historic rainfalls were west of 1-
45, north of I-10, and Greens Bayou.
  Additionally, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over the 
Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in just 14 hours.
  Mr. Chair, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,015 homes were 
flooded and 8 persons died; during the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400 
homes were flooded and 8 deaths recorded.
  The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at 
$3 billion; the 2016 estimate is being compiled and is estimated to be 
well above $2 billion.
  Mr. Chair, minimizing the risk of flood damage to the Houston and 
Harris County metropolitan area, the nation's 4th largest, is a matter 
of national significance because the region is one of the nation's 
major technology, energy, finance, export and medical centers:
  1. Port of Houston is the largest bulk port in the world;
  2. Texas Medical Center is a world renowned teaching, research and 
treatment center;
  3. Houston is home to the largest conglomeration of foreign bank 
representation and second only to New York City as home to the most 
Fortune 500 companies; and
  4. The Houston Watershed Assessment study area sits within major 
Hurricane Evacuation arteries for the larger Galveston Gulf Coast 
region.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
  I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work in 
shepherding this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, first let me assure my colleague that I 
understand the issue prompting this amendment. Seeing our communities 
flood and our constituents struggling to deal with the aftermath of 
flooding, especially when there are projects already planned to prevent 
such flooding, can be extremely frustrating.
  That is why the energy and water bills over the past several years 
have included significant funding above the budget request for the 
Corps of Engineers flood and storm damage reduction mission.
  In fact, the fiscal year 2017 energy and water bill more than doubles 
the budget requested from the administration for construction of these 
projects. It is an increase of 113 percent, or $457 million.
  More specifically, the bill includes $392 million in additional 
funding, for which the Houston area projects could compete. That amount 
is $82 million more than the amount provided in the fiscal year 2016 
act.
  Additionally, the committee report directs the Corps to consider the 
severity of risks of flooding or the frequency with which an area has 
experienced flooding when deciding how to allocate the additional 
funding provided. The bill provides strong support for addressing flood 
risks.
  Because the amendment does not actually change funding levels and, 
so, does not upset the balance of priorities within this bill, I will 
not oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, again I thank Mr. Simpson for recounting 
that information and Ms. Kaptur for the leadership that she has given 
and the understanding of the plight that we are in.
  Flood control is critical to dams and harbors, and it is most 
critical of all as

[[Page 7394]]

infrastructure. That is what the construction funding will do. We 
understand that this now will give us the opportunity for long overdue 
projects that are dealing with major flooding.
  The previous amendment giving us a work plan through the Army Corps 
of Engineers will again be instructive and helpful to saving lives and 
reducing the enormity of loss and the enormity of damage that has been 
caused to these areas.
  I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out the memorandum from the White House 
     Counsel's Office to all Executive Department and Agency 
     General Counsels entitled ``Reminder Regarding Document 
     Requests'' dated April 15, 2009.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment which will prevent 
the administration from causing unnecessary delays and blocking 
important information from being released to the general public under 
the Freedom of Information Act.
  In 2009, the White House released a secret memo to every executive 
department and agency urging them to consult with counsel at the White 
House before releasing any documents or fulfilling any requests that 
may involve ``White House equities.''
  Last year the Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, 
released a special report titled The Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Act Process.
  In this report, Federal investigators determined that, in numerous 
cases where the Department of Energy's general counsel had provided 
their FOIA response to the White House, ``the FOIA case file was 
incomplete and did not contain all of the documents related to the FOIA 
response.''
  What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? As the report tells us, incomplete 
documentation in these cases prevents us from being absolutely certain 
we know what changes or redactions were made when the White House 
reviewed the documents. Further, we don't know how many records 
requests submitted to the Department of Energy were blocked by the 
White House.
  For an administration that once sought to be the most transparent 
administration in our Nation's history, actions such as these do 
nothing to inspire trust or confidence amongst the American people.
  It took a FOIA request in 2014 to reveal that, out of more than 450 
Department of the Interior inspector general requests, the Obama 
administration only allowed the IG to release three reports.
  While that stat is troubling, figures released by the Associated 
Press this year through their annual FOIA review are even more 
disturbing. The annual review covers Freedom of Information Act 
requests made to more than 100 different Federal agencies.
  Shockingly, the AP reported in March that, in 2015, the American 
people received censored responses or nothing in 77 percent of all FOIA 
requests, redacted releases or nothing in response to nearly 600,000 
Freedom of Information Act requests. Absolutely shameful.
  Daniel Epstein, executive director of the nonprofit government 
watchdog Cause of Action, said it best when he stated: ``Information 
seekers, whether they're individuals, members of the news media or 
public interest groups, should be extremely troubled by the fact that 
this White House has been interfering with how Federal agencies comply 
with the Freedom of Information Act.''
  This amendment is supported by Americans for Tax Reform; the Council 
for Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Taxpayers Union; 
the Taxpayers Protection Alliance; Concerned Citizens for America, 
Arizona Chapter; the Gila County Cattle Growers Association; and the 
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative.
  Agency officials that want to comply with the law and respond to 
Freedom of Information Act requests in a timely manner should not be 
blocked from doing so because of an arbitrary memo from the White 
House.
  The Department of Energy IG and numerous government watchdog groups 
claim the memo that my amendment defunds is limiting public access 
under the Freedom of Information Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and defund this 
unlawful memo.
  I also want to thank the distinguished chair and ranking member for 
their work on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentlewoman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I am opposed to the amendment as the provision 
interferes with the standard practice spanning administrations of both 
parties and raises potential constitutional concerns.
  It is standard practice for agencies processing Freedom of 
Information Act requests to confer with other executive branch entities 
with equities, including the White House, prior to releasing documents. 
Agencies refer documents to the White House just as they refer 
documents to other agencies.
  The practice of agencies consulting with the White House prior to 
Freedom of Information Act requests regarding White House equities is 
longstanding, spanning administrations of both parties. The Reagan 
administration issued a memorandum in 1988 directing such consultation.
  Finally, the provision could interfere with the President's ability 
to protect privileged information and thereby could raise 
constitutional concerns in some applications. This is just one more 
instance of the majority prioritizing message amendments rather than 
getting on with the hard work of legislating.
  I oppose this amendment. It has no place on an appropriations bill 
and should be defeated.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to just actually 
reiterate these responses. Seventy-seven percent of all FOIA requests 
were not complied with. Redacted releases are nothing in response to 
nearly 600,000 Freedom of Information Act requests. Once again, smoke 
and mirrors. When are we going to get this?
  I would ask everybody to 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 Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Engel

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used 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 743, 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

[[Page 7395]]

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.
  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 language to 20 different appropriations 
bills over the past few years, and every time it has 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 
spikes in oil prices would still 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 640,000 vehicles. More than 55,000 of those 
vehicles are within the jurisdiction of this bill, 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 use. People there can drive to a gasoline station and choose 
whether to fill their vehicle with gasoline or 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 
proposing a bill in 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. It is less than $100 per 
vehicle. That is a separate issue, but I raise it because it is in 
conjunction with what I am proposing here. If they can do it in Brazil, 
we can do it here.
  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.
  Again, I have submitted this in different appropriations bills 
through the years, and it has always passed unanimously by both 
Democrats and Republicans. I hope it will be the same.
  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. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Energy for the 21st Century 
     Clean Transportation Plan.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which will help 
prevent an unnecessary tax increase on hardworking families and send a 
strong message from the House of Representatives that we oppose the 
administration's new mandatory climate change transportation program.
  In February, the Obama administration proposed creating a new program 
nicknamed the 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan that aims to spend 
$320 billion over the next 10 years and divert precious taxpayer funds 
to self-driving cars, high-speed rail, and mass transit in the name of 
preserving the environment.
  In fact, $20 billion of the estimated $32 billion each year for this 
proposed program won't go to roads or bridges, but instead will be 
squandered on inefficient programs that require significant taxpayer 
subsidies.
  To pay for the majority of this unlawful $320 billion program, the 
Obama administration has proposed a $10.25 tax on every barrel of oil. 
This new tax on crude oil and petroleum products will inevitably be 
passed on to hardworking Americans that can't afford another new tax 
increase from the Obama administration.
  In fact, the $10.25 per-barrel tax is estimated to add an additional 
25 cents to the cost of every gallon of gasoline. Millions of energy-
related jobs will be put at risk and low-income families will be forced 
to bear larger financial burdens as a result of this unnecessary tax 
that is being proposed to pay for Obama's flawed climate change 
transportation program.
  In the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2017 budget, the agency 
requested $1.3 billion for this year and $11.3 billion over the next 10 
years to fund the administration's 21st Century Clean Transportation 
Plan.
  My amendment rejects the new $10.25 tax on every barrel of crude oil 
and prohibits funding in this bill for the administration's flawed 
climate change transportation program.
  This amendment is supported by Americans for Limited Government; 
Americans for Tax Reform; the Council for Citizens Against Government 
Waste; the National Taxpayer Union; the Taxpayers Protection Alliance; 
Concerned Citizens for America, Arizona Chapter; the Gila County Cattle 
Growers Association; and the Sulphur Springs Valley Electric 
Cooperative.
  I thank the distinguished chair and ranking member for their work on 
this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2115

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has hit a very soft spot with 
me here, the automotive and trucking industries, so vital to my area of 
the country and so vital to the whole economy.
  Actually, the manufacturing part of America, as it recovers, is 
lifting us to new heights with economic growth. I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment because, again, it takes America backward, 
not forward.
  This amendment seeks to prohibit funding for the Department of 
Energy's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, which is a fantastic 
initiative which would set America on a long-term path to achieving our 
economic and climate goals.
  I am telling you, when you see some of what is being done with new 
materials science, with new composites, with metals and plastics 
technologies, I can go from Ford's Ecoboost engine, to Chrysler's new 
vehicles, to Dana's new axle plant being built in the Midwest, to 
General Motors and the wonderful work that they are doing at Brook 
Park. One plant after another, you can see the results of innovation 
where the Department of Energy, working with the private sector, is 
bringing the future to us every day.
  The 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan would scale up clean 
transportation research and development, critical for the clean 
transportation systems of the future. Did you know that in the internal 
combustion engine we still do not understand how fuel actually burns? 
The Department of Energy is doing wonderful research to try to help 
important companies like Cummins Engine figure out how fuel is actually 
used in those engines to make them more efficient.
  We have to talk about reducing the cost of batteries and developing 
low-carbon fuels such as biofuels. We don't have all the answers. 
Industry alone doesn't do it alone because some of this is basic 
research.
  We also are involved in funding the development of regional low-
carbon fueling infrastructure, including charging stations for electric 
vehicles for those people who choose to purchase those and pumps for 
hydrogen fuel cell cars. Yes, we are inventing the future. You know 
what? It feels pretty good.
  Finally, it would investigate future mobility and intelligent 
transportation

[[Page 7396]]

systems like vehicle connectivity and self-driving cars. Last week the 
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association was up here, and I went 
over to the northeastern part of the city, drove a Peterbilt truck with 
Bendix technology and with the automatic braking systems that are just 
incredible in a vehicle that has a cubic ratio of about 480 cubic 
inches to that engine. What an incredible piece of engineering that is.
  The Department of Energy is always driving us into the future, and 
that is where we need to go. Our Nation has always been a leader on 
innovation. To sustain this pace, we must continue to invest in 
programs like the 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, which drives 
our economy forward.
  The automotive industry and all the related suppliers, including 
trucks, represent about one out of every seven jobs in this country. We 
are in stiff competition with markets that are closed, with markets 
that try to target our industry and snuff them out of existence. I 
think that we have to do everything possible.
  I co-chair the House Automotive Caucus here along with Congressman 
Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, and I would have to say that the 
gentleman's amendment does not take us forward, but backward.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose it very, very strongly.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. 
Getting back to the amendment, I would remind the gentleman offering 
the amendment, A, that this is not the tax committee, that any $10 tax 
on a barrel of oil would come out of the Ways and Means Committee. I 
don't see that coming out of the Ways and Means Committee, but it is 
not included in this bill.
  The other thing that I would remind the gentleman of is there is no--
I repeat no--funding in this bill for the President's 21st Century 
Clean Transportation Plan, the mandatory funding that was proposed by 
the administration. There is no funding in this bill for it; so, this 
amendment does nothing. It strikes no funding because there is no 
funding in this bill.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind everybody that $20 billion 
of the estimated $32 billion each year for this proposed program won't 
go to roads or bridges, but to these inefficient programs.
  I guess we are going to the future. We are $19 trillion in debt and 
soon to be $22 trillion and $23 trillion and $24 trillion in debt. Yes, 
I do understand, in the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2017 budget, 
the agency requested $1.3 billion for this year and $11.3 billion over 
the next 10 years to fund the administration's 21st Century Clean 
Transportation Plan.
  Now, while the budget request this year happened to be mandatory, 
next year it could be discretionary. The House has not taken action to 
date to reject the $10.25 tax on every barrel of oil and to this 
fundamentally flawed program.
  My amendment rejects that tax increase and the Obama administration's 
new climate change transportation program.
  I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford

  Mr. SANFORD. 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 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 743, 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. Chair, I think what I have before all of us is a 
commonsense amendment. It simply says that the advanced technology 
vehicle manufacturing loan program will continue to exist, but there 
can be no additional loans.
  The reason that I do so is, when I came and offered this amendment 
last year, I had a cutting amendment last year, but what was explained 
to me was that, if you cut the program, then you wouldn't have money to 
administer the existing loans that were out there.
  So, as a result, I have altered this amendment so that it again 
leaves in place the appropriation, which is more than $5 million, so 
that you could continue to administer the existing loans that are in 
place, but there would be no additional loans.
  Now, why do I think that that is important? I think it is important 
for a couple different reasons. I think, from a Democratic standpoint, 
what we would say is that we all believe in equality and that there 
shouldn't be subsidized loans for major corporations, global 
corporations, here in the United States while your cousin's pizza 
business is struggling or your friend's landscaping business is 
struggling. They don't get subsidized loans. Why should a big business?
  So, from a Democratic standpoint, I think we would hold that belief. 
From a Republican standpoint, we would say we need to watch out for the 
taxpayer.
  If you look at the default rate on these loans, unfortunately, it has 
been relatively high. You would say: I don't know if government is in 
the best spot to be making these kinds of loans to businesses.
  I think that ultimately is the role not of government, but of 
business. Let them do what they do. I think from both vantage points it 
is something that makes sense.
  I would add just a couple of additional thoughts and then I would 
yield.
  I would say, one, there have been only five loans made since 2007. 
This is not a huge program. This is a very limited program.
  Two, two out of the five loans made since 2007, in fact, have 
defaulted. That is a 40 percent default rate. I don't think that that 
is the kind of thing that we would like to see in government.
  There have been no loans made since 2011. And then the GAO came in 
March of 2013 and said the costs outweigh the benefits of this program.
  They followed that up with another GAO report in March of 2014 and 
said: We recommend shutting down the program unless the Department of 
Energy can show real demand for the loans.
  Then they followed that up with a final GAO report in March of this 
year, and it said that there hadn't been a sufficient level of demand.
  As a consequence, their words were this: Determining whether funds 
will be used is important, particularly in a constrained fiscal 
environment. This Congress should rescind unused appropriations or 
direct them to other government priorities.
  I think the simple issue with this loan program is that there could 
be other priorities where you take that $4 billion of loan authority 
and let other parts of government use it or turn it back to the private 
sector and use that money much more effectively.
  Mr. Chair, 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 just want to state that I don't want 
people who may be listening to this, other Members who may be listening 
to this, to get the impression that we are putting money in here for 
the Loan Guarantee Program.
  There is no money in the underlying bill for the ATVM additional new

[[Page 7397]]

loans. The only money in there is to administer the existing loans.
  I understand what the gentleman is saying. I agree with the 
gentleman. I just don't want Members to think that we are putting money 
into the program when we are not.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I very, very much appreciate what the 
chairman pointed out. Again, that is why I think it is so important to 
simply codify this notion that we won't go forward.
  The money is in there for administration of existing loans. It is 
just saying that we are not going to go out and administer new ones, 
given the other needs that exist within both the public and the private 
sector for funds like this.
  Mr. Chair, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. Any proposal to sunset the Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing Program or limit the pipeline of projects that may be 
eligible is shortsighted and should be rejected.
  Why? First, the program is a critical one for the American automotive 
industry and has supported its resurgence. They have issued more than 
$8 billion in loans to date, and these loans have resulted in the 
manufacture of more than 4 million fuel-efficient advanced vehicles, 
supported approximately 35,000 direct jobs across eight States, 
including California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, New 
York, and Tennessee, and saved more than 1.35 million gallons of 
gasoline. Not too bad.
  The success has been achieved with losses of only approximately 2 
percent of a total portfolio of $32 billion for the loan programs 
office. That is a lower percent than most banks have on the loans that 
they make. What we are talking about here is higher level research, 
higher level investments in technologies that are yet being born.
  Why else should we reject this amendment? Instituting an arbitrary 
and immediate deadline for applications to this program would result in 
the Department losing billions of dollars in loan authority itself. The 
program currently has billions in loan requests in the pipeline from 
both automakers and component manufacturers for projects in 10 States.
  Thirdly, capping the program of eligible projects will hinder the 
Department's ability to issue new loans to support domestic 
manufacturing of advanced vehicles especially at a time when we are 
asking the industry to meet rising fuel economy standards.
  It is really amazing what has been done just in the last 15 years. 
When we look at some of the vehicles coming out now, we are seeing 
vehicles like the Cruze, 33 miles a gallon. Some are going up to 40, 
some to 50. It is really amazing what has happened, the transformation 
that is happening in this industry that we are living through directly.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment because I really do believe 
innovation has always led us into the future. This is the kind of 
program that can provide the capital necessary to expand our domestic 
manufacturing when so much of it is being offshored. It is a major 
issue in the Presidential election this year in both political parties, 
how we are going to restore manufacturing in this country.
  We have to do it through innovation. We have to do it in sectors that 
are muscle sectors like the automotive and truck industry that are so 
vital and produce real wealth for this country, not imported wealth, 
but wealth that we produce ourselves through all the componentry, the 
thousands and thousands and thousands of components that go into these 
vehicles, and the fuel efficiency that makes them competitive in the 
marketplace of today.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I would agree with much of what my colleague 
said just a moment ago. I think that innovation is, indeed, the gateway 
to the future, but I would argue that great innovation has been led by 
the private sector, not by loan guarantees to major corporations.
  You think about Steve Jobs and his partner opening up that business 
in basically what amounted to the basement of a house. That is not what 
we are talking about here. I think some of the great innovations will 
come from small businesses that don't see this kind of financial 
advantage.
  Two, I would make the point that this is not about just helping 
American companies. One of the largest loans out there was to Mazda, 
which is not an American company. Ford is--that is one of the other big 
loans, but Mazda is not.
  I would put this in the larger classification of Reagan's words: The 
closest thing to eternal life is a government program.
  This is one of those government programs that has not proved 
successful, and I think it is important that we wean government 
programs. We prune them where they don't make sense.
  Forty percent is, in fact, the default rate. If you add up all the 
numbers, it amounts to 2 percent. But most people when they think of 
default and what the American Bankers Association would think of when 
they think of default is divided by the number of loans out there, what 
percent defaulted, and that number happens to be a real 40 percent, not 
2 percent of the aggregate amount of the total loans out there.

                              {time}  2130

  Finally, I would again go back to this simple point. I agree with my 
colleagues about what they have said on the need for innovation and for 
reform, but I don't think it will be led through a loan program that 
has seen any number of defaults in the process. That money could be 
redeployed to education and a whole host of our primary needs in this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Buck

  Mr. BUCK. 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 research, draft, propose, or finalize the Notice 
     of Proposed Rulemaking that was published by the Department 
     of Energy on December 19, 2014, at 79 Fed. Reg. 76,142, 
     titled, ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
     Standards for Residential Dishwashers'', the Notice of 
     Proposed Rulemaking that was published by the Department of 
     Energy on August 13, 2015, at 80 Fed. Reg. 48,624, titled, 
     ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards 
     for Ceiling Fan Light Kits'', or the Notice of Proposed 
     Rulemaking that was published by the Department of Energy on 
     August 19, 2015, at 80 Fed. Reg. 50,462, titled, ``Energy 
     Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
     Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Vending Machines''.

  Mr. BUCK (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
waive the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment returns choice to consumers 
and keeps the price of products affordable.
  The Department of Energy's energy conservation program issues 
efficiency regulations for everyday appliances like dishwashers and 
vending machines. The rules are based on a cost-benefit analysis, but 
the analysis is vague and skewed to the desired outcome. Rather than 
improving the lives of consumers, these mandates drive up the cost of 
appliances.
  To address the rising costs and the crackdown on consumer choice, 
this

[[Page 7398]]

amendment prohibits energy mandates on residential dishwashers, ceiling 
fan light kits, and vending machines. Individuals should have a choice 
of whether or not to buy these appliances.
  As consumer demand for efficiency increases, the market will find a 
way to produce appliances that save more energy. This amendment stops 
the administration from implementing their radical green energy agenda 
on the backs of American families.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. My colleague's 
amendment would prohibit the use of funds at the Department of Energy 
to propose efficiency standards for ceiling fan light kits, residential 
dishwashers, and vending machines.
  Mr. Chairman, the law in question allows for executive overreach by 
prescribing what industry can and cannot sell and what consumers can 
and cannot buy. Industry has legitimate concerns about the government 
forcing a wholesale change to a market for something as common as a 
dishwasher. This amendment reins back this overreaching regulation, and 
I support this amendment and recommend my colleagues vote ``yes.''
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. It is just 
one more instance where the majority is saddling the consumer with 
ever-increasing energy bills. We know how the standards have really 
saved consumers money over the years. I have some figures here that are 
very interesting.
  A typical household saves about $216 a year off their energy bills 
now as a result of renewed standards. As people replace their 
appliances with newer models, they can expect to save more than $453 
annually by 2030. The cumulative utility bill savings to consumers from 
all standards in effect since 1987 are estimated to be nearly $1 
trillion by 2020 and grow to nearly $2 trillion through 2030.
  Invention does matter. And the application of that to our daily life 
really matters. The efficiency standards have spurred innovation that 
dramatically expanded options for consumers. It is time to choose 
common sense over rigid ideology, and 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 Buck amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this Act is hereby 
     reduced by 1 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I know that the committee has worked 
hard to get a bill that is going to come into the numbers. 
Unfortunately, I disagree with the $1.070 trillion number that is in 
the Bipartisan Budget Act. I like the Budget Control Act's number of 
$1.040 trillion.
  A $30 billion difference doesn't sounds like a lot when you are 
talking about trillions of dollars, but I tell you, to my constituents, 
with $19 trillion debt, it does make a difference.
  The funding level of this bill is $37.444 billion. I will be offering 
an amendment, which I offer every year to our spending bills, to cut 1 
percent across the board. That would yield us $374 million in budget 
authority savings, and outlays savings of $222 million.
  I know it doesn't sound like a lot, but it is simply taking one penny 
out of every dollar that is appropriated. And that, quite frankly, is 
the type of scrimping and saving that our constituents and American 
families are having to do all across this country in order to make 
their budgets work.
  I am fully aware of the strong opposition that many have to making 
those 1 percent across-the-board cuts. As I have offered these 
amendments, many times I am told that cuts of this magnitude go far too 
deep, that they would be very damaging to our Nation's security, but I 
kind of agree with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullin when he said 
the greatest threat to our Nation's security is our Nation's debt.
  I think we ought not to be putting future generations at risk, and we 
should be working toward reducing what our Federal outlays are every 
single year and working toward balancing the budget. It means yes, we 
have to go in and cut that penny out of a dollar and save it for our 
children and our grandchildren to get this Nation back on the right 
track.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her 
consistency. She always has these amendments to cut 1 percent across 
the board out of the appropriations bills, and I appreciate her 
consistent work to protect the taxpayer dollars, but this is an 
approach that, frankly, I can't support.
  While the President may have proposed a budget that exceeds this 
bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that 
would never be enacted. This bill makes the tough choices within an 
allocation that adheres to current law.
  You may not agree with current law, but it is the current law, and 
that is what we had to go with. Since there wasn't a budget resolution 
passed, what we ended up with is current law; and that is the 
allocation that we have, and that is what we stayed within.
  I don't think the Appropriations Committee gets enough credit over 
the last several years for the work we have been doing in reducing 
Federal spending.
  If you look at the total Federal budget and the amount of 
discretionary spending and mandatory spending, at one time it was about 
two-thirds discretionary spending and one-third mandatory spending 30 
or 40 years ago. Then, about 5 years ago, it was one-third 
discretionary spending and two-thirds mandatory spending. That is 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security entitlements.
  Since we have taken control the last 5 years, that one-third of the 
budget that is discretionary spending is about 28 percent now. As it 
continues to go down in relationship to the entire budget, we cut 
discretionary spending more and more.
  We have made difficult tradeoffs that had to be made in this bill to 
balance it with our needs. We prioritize funding for critical 
infrastructure and for our national defense. These tradeoffs were 
carefully weighed for their respective impacts and are responsible. Yet 
the gentlewoman's amendment imposes an across-the-board cut on every 
one of these programs, even the national defense programs, which are 
vitally important.
  This makes no distinction between where we need to be spending to 
invest in our infrastructure, promote jobs, and meet our national 
security needs, like meeting the Ohio-class submarine dates so that we 
can get the Ohio-class submarine done, so that we can do the 
refurbishment of our nuclear stockpile, so that we can do the other 
things that are important on the national defense side of this budget.
  It makes no distinction between those and where we need to limit 
spending to meet our deficit reduction goals. Therefore, I must oppose 
this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

[[Page 7399]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, indeed, the Appropriations Committee 
does deserve some credit. But also, passing the Budget Control Act with 
the 2 percent across-the-board spending reduction in discretionary 
spending deserves some credit also, because it shows the effectiveness 
of what those cuts can do.
  Governors use this, Democratic and Republican alike. They do it 
because their States have balanced budget amendments, and they can't 
crank up the printing press and print the money.
  I would encourage my colleagues to take a step toward fiscal 
responsibility, get inside and cut one more penny out of a dollar. We 
can do that on every appropriation that we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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 by the Army Corps of Engineers to implement, 
     administer, or enforce the last four words of subparagraph 
     (B) of section 1341(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, 
     with respect to crevassing of levees under the Birds Point-
     New Madrid Floodway Operations Plan.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Missouri and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, in May of 2011, under the strong 
objections of numerous folks in southeast Missouri and my predecessor, 
the Army Corps of Engineers activated the Birds Point levee, which is 
the second time since 1937. This resulted in an extensive amount of 
damage: over $156 million worth of damage and flooding of over 130,000 
acres. In that place, homes and communities were completely destroyed 
and crops were lost.
  After the water receded, many residents simply chose not to ever 
return home and back to their community. These are individuals that 
lived there for numerous generations. One community, a small town 
called Pinhook in Mississippi County, right in the boot heel, that no 
longer exists after the activation of that floodway.
  The amendment that I have today is quite simple, Mr. Chairman. It 
says, when an activation of the Birds Point levee occurs, we must build 
it back. Not anything else other than if there is an activation, the 
government must build it back. If they destroy a community by 
activating and blowing up a levee, they must build it back. The 
amendment is extremely simple.
  Had families in the Birds Point floodway had the assurance that a 
plan was already in place, perhaps they would have chosen to return 
back to their home for generations.
  When river levels rise, safety is always the number one concern. But 
the Corps of Engineers should never, under any circumstances, breach a 
levee without already having in place plans for its restoration, 
allowing for residents to return to their lives as soon as possible.

                              {time}  2145

  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and give assurance to 
Americans who live in floodways that their homes and livelihoods 
matter, and to remove any uncertainty that, should the worst happen, 
their lives can return to normal.
  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 amendment.
  First, let me assure the gentleman that I understand his concerns and 
appreciate his passion for protecting his constituents. I agree with 
him that, if the floodway is required to be operated in a major flood 
event, the levee should be restored as soon as possible after the flood 
event. In fact, the committee report on this bill makes that very 
point.
  Unfortunately, the amendment and the impacts of it are not clear. It 
is possible that the amendment would actually increase flood risks for 
other communities within the Mississippi River and tributaries project 
area.
  Without understanding the effects of the amendment, I must oppose it.
  Mr. BOST. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, I do stand in opposition, reluctant 
opposition. I have a tremendous respect for the gentleman from 
Missouri. I understand what he is trying to do, and that is that if the 
activation of the Birds Point levee does occur, that it should be built 
back.
  But when you read the language, the concern I have is that it would 
actually stop the activation of the levee in the first place.
  Understand, when these levees were first built, there were certain 
key points that were pressure release valves. The Birds Point was one 
of those. So as it rises, the Army Corps of Engineers has explained 
through a process of when to go in. And when we say crevasse, we mean 
we have to actually put explosive charges into the levee to relieve the 
pressure so that other areas--this is the way the system was built. It 
was designed by engineers to work this way originally.
  The concern that we have is not with the fact that it should be built 
back, because I agree with the gentleman it should be built back. But 
the way the language actually reads, we are not sure that it would 
actually stop the Army Corps of Engineers from doing what it is that 
they are required by law to do, and that is to use that pressure 
release valve in times of emergency.
  It is true, we have only had to use it twice since those systems have 
been put in place. It is a sad thing when it occurs. It floods a 
tremendous amount of crop land, and because it had not been operated in 
so long, people had built homes in there. Now, that was unfortunate 
that they built them in that situation, but we cannot endanger all 
other areas for putting language like this forward. I am more than 
willing to work with the gentleman on trying to make sure that this 
language is correct. We just couldn't be able to do that at this time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the language of the amendment is 
very clear, very clear. It does one simple thing. It means, if the 
activation of this levee ever occurs, that the Federal Government is 
obligated to rebuild it.
  It is a limiting amendment that is crystal clear. It provides that, 
if there is an activation, that the Federal Government is obligated to 
build it back, simple as it is, making sure the Federal Government is 
responsible for its actions.
  I ask the body to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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 Missouri 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Walker

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

[[Page 7400]]

  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 amounts otherwise made available by this 
     Act for the following accounts of the Department of Energy 
     are hereby reduced by the following amounts:
       (1) ``Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy'', $400,000.
       (2) ``Nuclear Energy'', $25,455,000.
       (3) ``Fossil Energy Research and Development'', 
     $13,000,000.
       (4) ``Strategic Petroleum Reserve'', $45,000,000.
       (5) ``Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup'', $2,400,000.
       (6) ``Science'', $49,800,000.
       (7) ``Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy'', 
     $14,889,000.
       (b) The amounts otherwise made available by this Act for 
     the following accounts are hereby reduced by the following 
     amounts:
       (1) ``Power Marketing Administrations--Construction, 
     Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
     Administration'', $2,209,000.
       (2) ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $32,132,000.

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
to suspend the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes over $9 billion in 
appropriations for 22 nondefense programs that are not authorized by 
law. Nine of these programs receive a total of $185 million more than 
their enacted 2016 level. Several of these programs have not been 
authorized since the 1980s, and one has never been authorized by 
Congress.
  My amendment is simple. My amendment would reduce unauthorized 
nondefense accounts to the 2016 levels. My amendment would also cut 
around $185 million and send that money to the spending reduction 
account.
  In a time when we, as a Nation, are approaching close to $20 trillion 
in debt, we cannot continue to fund unauthorized accounts in our 
appropriations process. This is a democratic Nation, and the men and 
women send the Members of this body, not to slip unauthorized programs 
in appropriations bills, but to have an open discussion on our funding 
priorities.
  Furthermore, the inclusion of appropriations for these programs in 
the reported bill is a violation of clause(2)(a)(1) of rule XXI of the 
rules of the House.
  I applaud Representative Tom McClintock and Conference Chair Cathy 
McMorris Rodgers for their significant work to raise awareness of the 
problem of unauthorized appropriations and work towards a solution so 
that the House actually enforces its rules.
  This year's Energy and Water appropriations includes over $1 billion 
in appropriations, and six more unauthorized programs that the House 
did pass in the 2016 Energy and Water bill from last year.
  If we want to fund a program, we should have an open debate and a 
transparent process that promotes trust and accountability.
  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 to oppose this amendment. My 
colleague's amendment would reduce multiple accounts in the bill.
  This year, the committee continues its responsibility to effectively 
manage government spending, and we have worked tirelessly to that end. 
For example, the nuclear and fossil programs see modest increases in 
the bill to continue our commitment for an all-of-the-above energy 
strategy.
  Basic research conducted by the Office of Science is increased by 
less than 1 percent, to support research and operation efforts to 
advance research and development through university partnerships and at 
the Nation's national laboratory system.
  Programs to clean up the legacy of the Manhattan Project and nuclear 
research also see minor increases in order to provide cleanup progress 
at sites across the country. These are targeted funds to produce needed 
investments to efficiently and safely utilize our natural resources, 
maintain the Nation's basic research infrastructure in the physical 
sciences, and continue the cleanup of Department of Energy legacy 
programs.
  I understand my colleague's desire to reduce the size of government, 
but this amendment goes too far in reducing the strategic investments 
we need to make in our future.
  I, therefore, oppose this amendment, and I urge Members to do the 
same.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I also oppose this amendment, which will reduce jobs in our country 
and hurt the middle class. There will be less investment in science, 
environmental cleanup, energy research and development, all of which 
create the future in this country, and have substantial returns on 
investments.
  Since 2003, by the way, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion on 
importing foreign petroleum. This is a vast shift of wealth. That is 
the big shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands of jobs from our 
country elsewhere. This amendment only exacerbates this shift of wealth 
from the American middle class.
  The bill funds support in science and R&D activities necessary for 
our competitiveness. The world is becoming more competitive, not less. 
Energy is at the center of that.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
(Mrs. Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Scientific research is an important province of the Federal 
Government, and normally I support it; but I support it if it has been 
authorized.
  The programs the gentleman from North Carolina has identified have 
not been authorized. Therefore, it is appropriate that the gentleman 
from North Carolina be supported in his amendment to just reduce them 
to the amount that gets us to flat funding. Flat funding is a 
reasonable request for programs that are not authorized.
  Let's get those programs reauthorized, if that is what the American 
people want, and the Congress wants, and let's do it in a way that 
makes sure these programs are authorized in a way that recognizes 21st 
century priority.
  That should happen at the authorizing committee level. If it doesn't 
happen at the authorizing committee level, a couple of things are 
wrong: either the authorizing committee doesn't have its hands on the 
steering wheel, or the authorizing committee thinks there needs to be 
changes that cannot be accomplished if the appropriators keep 
increasing the funding.
  The incentive for the authorizing committee comes when these programs 
are flat-funded. We should not be funding programs with increases that 
are no longer authorized.
  This is a problem throughout government. It is a way to save money in 
a government that is $19 trillion in debt, and I applaud the gentleman 
from North Carolina for his conscientious, careful, thoughtful, 
reasoned amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It simply rolls 
back or reduces unauthorized nondefense accounts to the 2016 levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, let me respond and tell the story again. 
We have already gone through this once

[[Page 7401]]

tonight about authorizations. I don't think we should fund any program 
that isn't authorized. I don't think we should flat-fund it. I don't 
think we should fund it. But that is, unfortunately, what the 
Appropriations Committee ends up doing because the authorizing 
committees aren't doing their dang job. They are not getting out and 
reauthorizing the programs.
  One year--and I will tell the story again. I will tell it again and 
again, I suspect, as we go through all of this--when I was chairman of 
the Interior Committee, because the Endangered Species Act at that time 
had not been reauthorized for 23 years, 23 years, I took all funding 
for listing of endangered species and designation of critical habitat 
out of the bill, zero funded it.
  We brought the bill to the floor. The biggest supporter of my bill 
and opponent to the amendment to put funding in it for those purposes 
was the chairman of the Resources Committee. It is the Resources 
Committee's responsibility to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. 
But he supported my amendment.
  And after all of that, guess what? They still haven't reauthorized 
the Endangered Species Act.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. This year, the Land and Water Conservation Fund expired 
in its authorization on September 30. In October, we began 
reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund and reforming it to 
get it back to its original intent. And before we could complete the 
process, the appropriators increased funding and reauthorized it for 3 
years.
  We can't get the reforms we need when appropriators continue to 
appropriate. The burden should be on the authorizers.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I agree with the gentlewoman. The burden should be 
on the authorizers, and they should do their job, and they should 
reauthorize the program.
  I still haven't seen the reauthorization for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. That was last year. I still haven't seen it. I 
haven't seen the reauthorizations for any of the programs. The whole 
State Department is unauthorized.
  Where is the reauthorization?
  What do you want us to do?
  We would eliminate about two-thirds of the Federal Government. Now, 
some people might like that. But we would eliminate about two-thirds of 
the Federal Government if we just said we are not going to fund any of 
the Federal programs.
  So, I mean, it is a debate that goes on.
  I agree with Congressman McClintock. We have to find a way around 
this. We have to find a way to address the reauthorization issue 
without screwing up the whole appropriation process.

                              {time}  2200

  I think we can do that if reasonable people sit down and try to find 
a way around this. I actually think that every committee chairman ought 
to sit down with leadership at the start of a session and say: This is 
my 5-year plan, and these are all of the programs that are unauthorized 
under my jurisdiction. This is my 5-year plan to get them reauthorized.
  They ought to follow through on that work plan.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSantis

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the finds made available by this Act may 
     be used to purchase heavy water from Iran.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, to be clear, the JCPOA requires Iran to 
cap its stockpile of heavy water. It does not require the U.S. to 
subsidize or to purchase that heavy water.
  This is a simple funding limitation amendment to an appropriations 
bill. It is similar to language used throughout the bill. It is a 
matter clearly related to the use of appropriated funds.
  I listened to this debate in the Senate, and people said: Well, we 
have to spend U.S. tax dollars on getting heavy water; otherwise, Iran 
is going to sell it to North Korea. But understand, it is already 
against international law to ship heavy water to North Korea. So if 
Iran were to decide to do that and violate those sanctions, we have a 
way bigger policy issue than simply heavy water purchases, and it would 
call into question the entire Iran deal.
  So instead of suppressing illicit nuclear proliferation among rogue 
nations, continuing purchases of Iranian heavy water would subsidize 
Iran's nuclear program and allow them to maintain the threshold 
capacity to make a dash for nuclear breakout.
  If we want to take heavy water, then we can take it, but we should 
not subsidize Iran's nuclear program.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Really, 
this provision doesn't belong on this appropriations bill. It is an 
issue best considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  This amendment would prevent the Department from spending any fiscal 
17 funds to purchase heavy water produced in Iran and would undermine 
the Iran deal.
  This transaction provides the United States industry with a critical 
product while enabling Iran to sell some of its excess heavy water as 
contemplated in the agreement and further ensuring that this product 
will not be used to develop a nuclear weapon, which is the objective 
that we all sought when we supported the agreement. Heavy water is 
needed here in our country. We stopped producing it in 1988 and now buy 
what we need from India and other countries.
  A portion of this heavy water will be used at the Spallation Neutron 
Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and by manufacturers for 
fiberoptic cable, MRI machines, and semiconductors.
  Most importantly, U.S. purchase of this heavy water prevents Iran 
from selling it to those who would choose to use it for the wrong 
reasons.
  Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, I object to this amendment as 
proposed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeSantis 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. It is interesting, Mr. Chair, people talk about the 
Iran deal, and what the administration has really been doing is they 
have even gone beyond the concessions that are in the Iran deal.
  If you look at getting access now to dollarized transactions, they 
said they weren't going to have access to the American financial 
system, but effectively, Iran is going to have indirect access to the 
American dollar. That was never called for by the Iran deal. That is a 
concession. Nor does the deal require us to spend American taxpayer 
funds to essentially inject into the Iranian regime and subsidize the 
nuclear program.
  So, Mr. Chair, I think it is a good amendment. I think our Members 
should vote for it.
  I yield back the balance of time.

[[Page 7402]]

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Weber of Texas.
  Amendment by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Farr of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California.
  Amendment No. 34 by Mr. Pittenger of North Carolina.
  Amendment by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
  Amendment by Mr. Foster of Illinois.
  Amendment by Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, as amended.
  Amendment by Mr. Byrne of Alabama.
  Amendment No. 14 by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
  Amendment by Mr. Smith of Missouri.
  Amendment by Mr. Walker of North Carolina.
  Amendment by Mr. DeSantis of Florida.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 260, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 251]

                               AYES--158

     Abraham
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Comstock
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     Love
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                               NOES--260

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Honda
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  2228

  Ms. TSONGAS, Messrs. POLIS, AGUILAR, Ms. PELOSI, Messrs. LOUDERMILK, 
and VELA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BILIRAKIS, WALBERG, GIBBS, FLEISCHMANN, LABRADOR, Mrs. ROBY, 
and Mr. BOST changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 245, not voting 14, as follows:

[[Page 7403]]



                             [Roll No. 252]

                               AYES--174

     Adams
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                               NOES--245

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  2233

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


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Farr

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 228, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 253]

                               AYES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                               NOES--228

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)

[[Page 7404]]


     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Keating
     Lamborn
     Meehan
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  2236

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126, 
noes 293, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 254]

                               AYES--126

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Richmond
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                               NOES--293

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duckworth
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Rangel
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Torres
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia)(during the vote). There is 
1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2239

  Ms. WILSON of Florida changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Pittenger

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page 7405]]

  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 192, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 255]

                               AYES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2243

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 188, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 256]

                               AYES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)

[[Page 7406]]


     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     McHenry
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  2246

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 213, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 257]

                               AYES--206

     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Chu, Judy
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt (VA)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     LaHood
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McSally
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller (FL)
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Polis
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Ratcliffe
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Ruiz
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Torres
     Veasey
     Vela
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Zeldin

                               NOES--213

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DelBene
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hill
     Huelskamp
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Langevin
     Lee
     Lewis
     Long
     Love
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  2249

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


       Amendment Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney), as amended, on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 7407]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 195, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 258]

                               AYES--223

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--195

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blumenauer
     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  2253

  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 186, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 259]

                               AYES--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)

[[Page 7408]]


     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  2256

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


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 258, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               AYES--158

     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crawford
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                               NOES--258

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harper
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Sanford
     Takai
     Waters, Maxine
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  2259

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


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 7409]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119, 
noes 300, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--119

     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Collins (GA)
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fleming
     Franks (AZ)
     Gabbard
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt (VA)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Knight
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (MO)
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Tipton
     Wagner
     Walden
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Zinke

                               NOES--300

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Ashford
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Graham
     Graves (LA)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harper
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth
       

                              {time}  2302

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Walker

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128, 
noes 291, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--128

     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt (VA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Latta
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lummis
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walters, Mimi
     Webster (FL)
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                               NOES--291

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)

[[Page 7410]]


     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth
       

                              {time}  2306

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSantis

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251, 
noes 168, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--251

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Latta
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--168

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Jenkins (KS)
     Lamborn
     O'Rourke
     Rice (NY)
     Takai
     Yarmuth
       

                              {time}  2309

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, 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. 5055) 
making appropriations for energy and water development and related 
agencies for the fiscal

[[Page 7411]]

year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________