[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11784-11793]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473 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. 3219.
  Will the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1945


                     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. 3219) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Gallagher (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson) had been disposed of.


                Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Mitchell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36 
printed in House Report 115-259.
  Mr. MITCHELL. 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:

       Page 273, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $18,100,000)''.
       Page 273, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $476,400)''.
       Page 282, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,900,000)''.
       Page 296, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $28,169,300)''.
       Page 326, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $52,645,700)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my fiscally 
responsible amendment that is one step in securing America's future.
  My amendment is a simple 10 percent cut to administrative expenses of 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Works, Department of the Interior, and Department of Energy. 
These savings would be used to reduce the deficit.
  Our national debt stands at $20 trillion, and growing. Our unfunded 
liabilities add another $100 trillion to $200 trillion to the Federal 
debt, and that is only a guess. Our deficit last year was over $500 
billion. That is not sustainable. It jeopardizes our future and must be 
taken seriously. Paying lip service to the problem will not solve it. 
Talk is cheap. We must now be responsible, before it is too late.
  I come from the world of private business and know the importance of 
having our fiscal house in order. I also know that being fiscally 
responsible starts with small steps, which, when added together, make a 
big impact.
  Early in my career, I worked at Chrysler at the time when Lee Iacocca 
was CEO and went through the first

[[Page 11785]]

loan guarantee. His famous fiscal savvy and focus helped save Chrysler, 
which was destined for bankruptcy. If not for Iacocca taking strong but 
necessary measures, a great Michigan company would have been lost.
  Lee Iacocca understood that fiscal responsibility starts on a small 
scale. He once said if he had a manager who couldn't cut administrative 
costs by 10 percent, he needed a new manager.
  Mr. Chair, that is what I propose today, a 10 percent cut to 
administrative costs of government agencies, which is a small step 
that, when combined with others like it, could yield back results and 
big savings for taxpayers. Moreover, these cuts would restrain an 
overactive government bureaucracy.
  The Republican-led Congress has worked hard to undo years of copious 
overregulation, but another solution is to have fewer regulators and 
fewer bureaucrats passing on regulations that make it hard for 
businesses to survive and taxpayers to live their lives.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to choose fiscal responsibility, 
choose a secure American future, make a modest cut in the 
administrations costs of our government, and support my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, 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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
understand that reducing the size of the bureaucracy is an important 
issue for many Members, and should be for all of us.
  As chair of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee, I am always open to hearing if my colleagues have 
particular concerns with agency budget requests. I could be supportive 
of thoughtful strategies for reducing the size of government by making 
agencies more efficient and carrying out their statutory goals. That is 
not what this amendment does. This amendment simply slashes 10 percent 
from each administrative account in the bill.
  Most of these accounts have been held flat or even slightly decreased 
over the past several years. Reducing them an additional 10 percent, 
with no clear idea on how such cuts would be absorbed, is simply not 
the right way to address the size of the Federal Government. It could 
take longer to review and improve important water resource projects--I 
hear about that all the time from my colleagues--or to issue grants and 
approve research agreements--I hear about that all the time from my 
colleagues--or to respond to congressional information requests--I hear 
about that all the time from my colleagues.
  These cuts would also put at risk the cybersecurity efforts of each 
agency, reducing their efforts to secure their own IT infrastructure. I 
don't think that is what the gentleman from Michigan intended, but that 
is a very possible result of this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I must urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  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, and I 
also rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I respect the gentleman from Michigan, particularly because he is 
from the Great Lakes region, too, and we need him as a strong voice for 
our Great Lakes, but I do think that cuts to these particular accounts 
really are counterproductive, for the following reasons.
  First of all, the most important step any country can take to deal 
with the deficit is to grow the economy. This particular budget, this 
particular set of accounts, particularly the Army Corps of Engineers, 
has the type of construction and building accounts that produce income. 
They produce income for people who do the work, but they also improve 
our ports.
  If you look all around Michigan, if you look at the Soo Locks, if you 
look at the assets just in our region of the country, the progress that 
a region can make, because it improves its ports and attendant roads 
and rails and so forth, creates opportunity for companies to locate and 
to grow.
  We just had a phenomenal announcement in the city of Toledo this week 
by the Cleveland-Cliffs company. We have been working for 30 years to 
improve the port to connect rail and to have east to west, north to 
south highway improvements. By golly, it worked with a $700 million 
investment by the private sector. It was just so exciting to bring ore 
from Michigan and Minnesota into the lower lakes. It was really quite 
incredible.
  So these dollars yield results. They don't happen in one year. They 
take a while to happen, but they happen.
  I also oppose the gentleman's amendment because there are $62 billion 
of backlogged projects at the Army Corps of Engineers alone. I don't 
know if you saw the stories about the Department of the Interior. 
People are lined up to get into the national parks through those 
turnstiles, trying to get into our national parks.
  We need to improve those parks. We need to make sure that we are 
doing things like dealing with the Forest Service so that the 
underbrush is cut out and that our forests aren't burning up all over 
the country.
  We have such a maintenance backlog across this Nation, and with 
budgets of this size, we don't want to be in a position where we under 
account for the funds that are being spent.
  So to reduce funding for critical oversight in the administrative 
departments of these very large agencies, I think is not wise. In fact, 
it is penny-wise and pound-foolish in the end.
  Mr. Chair, for all of those reasons--our jobs, the security of 
taxpayer funds, and for the sake of the future--I oppose the 
gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, I certainly did not intend the adverse 
impacts that are outlined by the chairman or the ranking member, nor do 
I believe they will arise.
  My experience in years of management is that, rather than detail 
item-by-item the cuts to be made, allow the leadership of agencies to 
determine where they can be more efficient. I honestly have to say, I 
can't imagine that we cannot be more efficient than we are in the 
Federal Government. I admit, my experience is somewhat more brief than 
many, but I am, frankly, shocked some days.
  I urge support of my amendment. I realize it may not be popular, but, 
at some point in time, we need to start to cut the incredible costs of 
this government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Mast

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is 
now in order to consider amendment No. 32 printed in House Report 115-
259.
  Mr. MAST. 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:

       Page 268, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 270, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mast) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because I represent the Treasure 
Coast of Florida, and it is facing an environmental disaster that, 
sadly, communities across the Nation face, from down along the 
Mississippi, up in Michigan, to the east coast of Florida. We face 
these disasters year after year. This disaster is toxic algal blooms.
  The water that is discharged into my area comes out of Lake 
Okeechobee and goes into the Treasure Coast of Florida. It puts people 
out of business,

[[Page 11786]]

kills sea life, sea grass, manatees, and fish. It makes people sick. It 
destroys home values and businesses. It is all because of a guacamole-
like toxic algal bloom that can occur year after year. This can't 
continue. Our communities can't wait any longer. Our lagoons, beaches, 
and water have to be restored.
  My amendment increases the Aquatic Plant Control Research Program 
within the Army Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development 
Center, or ERDC, by $500,000 above the appropriated level.
  The Aquatic Plant Control Research Program is the only federally 
authorized research program directed to develop the kind of technology 
for management of nonindigenous aquatic plant species, like these toxic 
blooms.
  When I talk to the Corps about the issue in my community and the 
communities across the country, I am told that they don't have the 
technology to scale the type of equipment that cleans out fish tanks to 
the level that we are facing in these large bodies of water.
  This amendment replaces the $500,000 shortfall from last year's 
appropriation and makes important investments in the research in order 
to ensure that the Army Corps has all of the information required to 
develop that technology that can scale the size needed to successfully 
complete their mission.
  Mr. Chair, I urge immediate passage, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman's concern 
is. In fact, it is a concern not only in Florida, but all over the 
country. It is a concern in Ohio. It is actually a concern in Idaho. 
You wouldn't think about that, but they are having some problems in 
Idaho with algal blooms, also. So it is something that we need to get 
on top of.
  I would just like to clarify that the amendment does not direct funds 
to any particular activities so that doesn't necessarily mean that this 
will get done, but I understand what the gentleman is trying to do.
  For that reason, and because it doesn't upset the balance of the 
bill, I will not oppose the amendment, but I want to work with him, as 
well as, I am sure, the ranking member, because this is an issue we 
have got to address across the country. I appreciate him bringing this 
matter and this issue to our attention so that we can talk about it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add a bit to that.
  I thank Congressman Mast very much for offering this amendment. I do 
think we need to work with the Corps. Obviously, this is a growing 
problem. We have heard from Florida colleagues. We have heard from 
colleagues in Nevada, throughout the Great Lakes region.
  These algal blooms are truly frightening. In the Midwest, in the 
Great Lakes region, a major water system was shut down for 3 days in 
the city of Toledo, denying water to over half a million people for 3 
days. It is quite frightening.
  At the moment, there is no--and I say this for the Corps' benefit, 
because it would require cooperation with other agencies--ecosystem 
satellite mapping or drone technology currently that is able to photo 
large regions and home in on where the nutrients are that are causing 
the problem.

                              {time}  2000

  As I have gotten into this more deeply, we need high science, whether 
it is high-frequency infrared or whatever we use. We do not have the 
ability to home in on where the causes are coming from and then target 
the toxic portions of those algal blooms.
  So a lot of work is needed, and I really appreciate the gentleman 
rising tonight. I know you have gotten the Corps' attention as you have 
gotten our attention, and we will work with the chairman to see if we 
can't make progress on this really vexing issue.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and 
we not only need to work with the Corps, but we also need to work with 
the EPA in trying to address this issue because it is a lot broader 
than most people think.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MAST. 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. Mast).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Heck

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Donovan). Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 35 printed in House 
Report 115-259.
  Mr. HECK. 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:

       Page 270, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 273, line 1, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by 500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Heck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about tackling a problem 
that, frankly, affects every single one of us in every single one of 
our districts, and that is storm water.
  Most of us probably don't think about it very much, but, frankly, 
when rain falls--it does a lot of that in the Northwest--and flows 
through our streets and off the shoulders of our highways, it picks up 
all sorts and kinds of pollutants. We are talking, frankly, about some 
really nasty stuff: toxic chemicals like arsenic and flame retardants, 
as well as oil and pesticides.
  Stop and think. The single largest contributor of water pollution in 
the United States of America is storm water runoff--up to 80 percent in 
some places.
  Toxic storm water runoff harms our rivers and our lakes and our 
waterways. But it not only harms our environment, it harms our 
businesses that depend on clean water, like the shellfish industry of 
Washington State which employs, literally, thousands of people.
  In Puget Sound, the largest estuary in America, storm water runoff 
literally can kill a salmon in a few hours. Well, salmon and other fish 
are a way of life in Washington, to the tune of a $30 billion, with a 
B, economy.
  Salmon also serve as a vital resource of immeasurable value. For the 
19 federally recognized Tribes in the Puget Sound, salmon is their way 
of life. They are called the salmon people.
  If we fail to address the problem posed by storm water, these 
resources will continue to decline, and our communities will continue 
to pay an avoidable price.
  So what are we doing right now to stop this from happening? The 
answer is: a few things, but nowhere near enough.
  If we are going to truly address the problem, the Federal Government 
needs to do the basic, and that is set an example. The good news is 
that Congress has recognized this in the past, because about 10 years 
ago this body passed a law which requires Federal agencies to reduce 
storm water runoff when they develop or redevelop property. That is a 
commonsense requirement, but we can't stop there.
  Research shows that the most cost-effective and efficient way to 
reduce storm water runoff is through what is called green 
infrastructure, or low-impact development, things like rain gardens and 
permeable pavement and green roofs.
  You probably won't be surprised when I share that the largest storm 
water research center in the United States of America is in my district 
at

[[Page 11787]]

our land-grant university, Washington State University's extension 
campus in Puyallup. So I am a witness to the promise and the potential 
of this approach.
  This amendment simply provides funding for the Army Corps of 
Engineers to determine to what extent they are using these technologies 
and techniques to comply with the requirements already imposed by 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to help communities and businesses 
impacted by toxic storm water runoff, it is crucial that the Federal 
Government set the example and lead the way. So I ask you to join me as 
responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and ensure that Federal 
agencies are using the latest and most efficient technology to manage 
storm water runoff.
  Finally, I want to extend my deepest appreciation to the chair of the 
committee, my friend from Idaho, and the ranking member from Ohio very, 
very much. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the gentleman is trying 
to do. I would just point out again that this amendment does not direct 
the funds to any particular activity, so it will actually take some 
coordination with us and some conversation with the Army Corps of 
Engineers to make sure that this goes in the area that we would like it 
to go to to study just what the gentleman was talking about.
  But because it doesn't direct it to a particular activity, for that 
reason and because it does not upset the balance of the bill, I will 
not oppose the amendment. In fact, I will 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 Washington (Mr. Heck).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 37 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37 
printed in House Report 115-259.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Congressman 
Beyer, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 277, beginning on line 12, strike section 108.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would essentially strike the 
provision related to the waters of the United States, section 108. 
Unfortunately, Republican insistence on the inclusion of poison pill 
riders like this one has derailed several important pieces of 
legislation over the last few years, especially clean water rural 
riders.
  However, let me be plain. This rider is worse than any of those 
previous versions, and it will not gain the Democratic votes necessary 
to become law. It actually is a roadblock in the way of us moving our 
bills forward.
  This rider would exempt the repeal of the clean water rule from laws 
that would otherwise apply, including the Administrative Procedure Act, 
essentially allowing the President to act unilaterally, the executive 
branch to act unilaterally without any input from the public. That 
doesn't sound like America to me.
  The Administrative Procedure Act was a Republican idea to make sure 
that government is accountable to its citizens and that their input be 
considered. People have come to expect this in their own communities. 
Exempting this action on clean water is a very slippery slope toward 
government by fiat, by an administration which deserves more scrutiny, 
I might add, on that front than any in our history.
  So I urge all my colleagues to support the Kaptur-Beyer amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be something that the 
ranking member and I happen to disagree on.
  Poison pill riders--I have always liked that term, ``poison pill 
riders.'' What they are are policy changes. If they are policy changes 
you like, they are policy changes. If you don't like them, they are 
poison pill riders. So when they had the majority, they put what we 
considered poison pill riders in their bill, but they were policy 
changes, and that is what we do in some appropriations bills.
  But I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I have been 
debating this issue for, I don't know, probably 10 years. While the 
change in the administration means that we are able to reduce the 
number of the issues we needed to address in this bill, some issues 
warrant continued congressional attention--WOTUS is one of them.
  My reason for opposing the Obama administration's WOTUS rule remains 
the same. The rule would greatly expand Federal jurisdiction over the 
Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the definition 
used under the Clean Water Act of navigable waters was hard to define 
and told them that they need a new definition.
  Well, the EPA's design on a new definition is, okay, we will just 
control everything. So everybody thinks that those waters that are now 
under control of the Clean Water--I mean, of the WOTUS rule written by 
the Obama administration were unregulated before. They were not 
unregulated. They were regulated by the States, and the States did a 
good job of regulating those things.
  But now the Federal Government has come in and taken control of all 
of those States. We think, and the courts have ruled, that this is too 
broad a definition of what they intended and what the Clean Water rule 
states.
  Nobody wants dirty water--nobody. But what we want is a rule that 
separates what the Federal Government has the authority to control and 
what the States have the authority to control.
  President Trump moved quickly on this issue by issuing an executive 
order in February, and a few weeks ago, the EPA and the Corps announced 
the first step in a two-step process: a proposed rule to rescind the 
WOTUS rule and recodify the previous regulatory text.
  The second step will be a second rulemaking to reevaluate the 
definition of waters of the United States in a manner consistent with 
the Supreme Court decision.
  The provision in this bill is supportive of these efforts. First, it 
provides clear authorization to withdraw the Obama administration's 
rule. Second, it clarifies what rule will be in effect if the WOTUS 
rule is withdrawn, specifically, the same rules that were in effect 
immediately prior to the promulgation of the final WOTUS rule. And 
third, it does not affect the Trump administration's ability to develop 
a new rule, one that will provide more clarity and certainty for the 
regulated community while staying within the legal bounds provided by 
the Supreme Court.
  For these reasons, I have to oppose this amendment, and I strongly 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment, in asking my 
colleagues to support this amendment, that the amendment itself is 
intended to address the two Supreme Court decisions. And in addition, 
if we leave this language in the bill, the chairman was correct, this 
is at the policy level. This doesn't belong in an appropriation bill. 
Let them deal with this in the courts and the authorizing committees.
  I think it creates a very, very high speed bump that threatens our 
bill's passage as we move forward, so I ask my colleagues to support us 
on striking the provision related to the waters

[[Page 11788]]

of the United States, section 108 offered by myself and Mr. Beyer of 
Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman so 
much for his leadership on this issue.
  WOTUS, waters of the U.S., it has really been talked about for a 
number of years. This is a classic case of Barack Obama, the 
administration previous to the Trump administration, overreaching its 
authority. This is executive branch takeover, waters of the U.S., 
saying that we have got what is called navigable waters and using the 
executive authority to redefine what navigable waters are.
  This hurts farmers. This hurts small businesses. The suggestion that 
just a puddle, a small creek is defined as a navigable water, we know 
that is simply not the case.
  Let me remind folks about the three branches of government: 
legislative, executive, and judiciary. We have Supreme Court decisions 
that were putting a stop to the overreach of the Obama administration's 
WOTUS rule. Thank you to the courts.
  We now have an opportunity as the legislative branch. We appreciate 
the work of the executive branch. We appreciate the fact that Donald 
Trump and Scott Pruitt and this administration are working to put a 
stop to it, because the Court said, as we all know, the Obama 
administration overreached.
  Now what we are doing, what this appropriations bill provides is the 
voice of the legislative branch to say, yes, the prior administration 
overreached; the executive branch historically needs to be curtailed; 
the courts were right. We need to speak as the legislative branch 
giving the authority to stop this onerous rule.
  I applaud the work of the Appropriations Committee. We need to put 
the legislative stamp of approval on what the Trump administration is 
doing to stop this overregulation.
  I thank the chair, and I certainly oppose this proposed amendment.
  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 Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  2015


           Amendment No. 38 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 
printed in House Report 115-259.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. 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:

       Page 286, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $177,000,000)''.
       Page 288, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $355,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill weakens 
America's commitment to clean energy. It harms the huge number of jobs 
that are being created in the renewable energy sector. And it stalls 
consumer cost savings tied to energy efficiency.
  Democrats have a different vision. It is one that lowers costs on our 
neighbors back home, and helps create the higher paying jobs of the 
future.
  My amendment increases funding for the Energy Efficiency & Renewable 
Energy account by about $177 million, and it reduces funding for the 
fossil Energy Research and Development account by about $355 million.
  Energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives across America 
have a proven return on investment for taxpayers. This amendment is 
paid for by reducing, but not eliminating, accounts that do not have 
the same return on investment for taxpayers.
  Investments in energy efficiency and renewables create jobs and help 
make our businesses more competitive. Energy efficiency reduces costs 
for consumers. And wouldn't that be a positive development for 
taxpayers back home, that the Congress is asking to put more money back 
into their pockets?
  The amount proposed for energy efficiency and renewable energy in the 
Republican bill is so low that America will have to reduce the number 
of research, development, and demonstration projects that are often 
supported with industry, at our great national laboratories, and at our 
fantastic universities.
  Mr. Chairman, America should be a leader in innovation and 
technological advancement. But, instead, the Republican bill says 
America should take a back seat. Well, America should not take a back 
seat to anyone. We are in the midst of a technological revolution when 
it comes to energy and energy efficiency.
  Look what is happening all across America. We have a very diverse 
energy portfolio and a growing clean energy and efficiency sector. This 
is especially important as we tackle the costs and challenges of the 
changing climate.
  Look at what we are today because of robust investments of the past 
decade. The solar industry is creating jobs 12 times faster than the 
overall U.S. workforce. In 2016, 1 out of every 50 new jobs was in 
solar energy.
  Republicans used to say they were for all-of-the-above sources of 
energy. Well, you can't say that anymore.
  The Trump administration and House Republicans are ceding America's 
leadership role in the world by failing to invest in technologies that 
will save families and businesses money.
  Instead, we should work together and face the challenges of the 
changing climate head-on and not bury our heads in the sand. Sixteen of 
the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001; including 
2016, which was the third consecutive record-breaking year.
  The rising costs of the changing climate are a real threat to 
everyone, especially to the families I represent back home in Florida, 
which is why I filed another amendment that was not ruled in order, an 
amendment that would limit the Department of Energy from removing the 
term ``climate change'' from their publications.
  That is right, the Trump administration has already removed mention 
of climate change from government websites, and has deleted a sentence 
linking climate change to sea level rise in a press release. Ignoring 
or trying to hide the cost of the changing climate will simply cost us 
more in the long run.
  We should be working together on investing in a clean energy future, 
but that, unfortunately, seems farther away today, unless we adopt an 
amendment like mine and begin to understand the realities that we are 
facing.
  If we don't unleash American ingenuity now, our neighbors back home 
will face higher AC bills, property insurance bills, flood insurance 
bills, and have to put more property taxes into replacing water and 
wastewater infrastructure.
  I appreciate Ranking Member Kaptur's vision. A little while ago, she 
was talking about our national labs--the fact that we have the best 
scientists in the world. Don't hamstring them by cutting back on our 
investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. She understands that 
this is our future that we are talking about. I appreciate her work. I 
appreciate the work of Chairman Simpson. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the 
Castor amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, let's step back a minute on this issue.
  As you can see from this chart, coal, natural gas, and oil--fossil 
fuels--make up 81 percent of this country's energy consumption--81 
percent.
  But the proportion of R&D funding, you can see, is only 18 percent, 
which is

[[Page 11789]]

far below what is currently being spent on renewables and nuclear.
  The reality is that America and the entire world are going to be 
dependent on fossil fuels for years to come. The Energy Information 
Administration estimates that by the year 2040, fossil energy will 
still make up 78 percent of the energy used around the globe.
  Are my friends on the other side serious about addressing these 
emissions?
  Shouldn't America's goal be to develop the technologies so that we 
can utilize coal and natural gas around the world in the cleanest, most 
efficient way possible?
  Shouldn't America be that global leader on energy technology?
  You can't do that without research.
  Mr. Chairman, we can't be cutting research on fossil fuels and 
technology. We should actually be increasing it.
  Fossil fuels will be around for the foreseeable future. I think we 
have a responsibility for our children and our grandchildren to make 
sure that it is burned and used in the most efficient, clean manner 
that we can, and this requires research.
  Mr. Chairman, the House has soundly defeated similar amendments to 
this in the past, year after year, and I hope they will defeat this 
one, too.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the 
gentleman from West Virginia. He is a well-spoken advocate for his 
State.
  I am not zeroing out the fossil fuel research for R&D, but, instead, 
we have got to look towards the future.
  Where are the jobs being created now?
  It is in renewable energy and energy efficiency, things that are 
going to put money back into the pockets of consumers and unleash this 
technological revolution so America can stay the leader in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Castor amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Ms. Castor's remarks, and I 
enjoy working with her in committee. But the realization is fossil 
fuels are consumed in all 50 States. It is not West Virginia we are 
dealing with.
  I think Ms. Castor is concerned about her State, the water quality in 
her State, and that is what this research is going to take care of.
  We have got to maximize the amount of money that has been put into 
it. In the past, we had far more amount of money in this.
  We need to preserve what we have, and, actually, I am hoping we can 
plus it up a little bit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. 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 Florida 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Norcross

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 
printed in House Report 115-259.
  Mr. NORCROSS. 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:

       Page 286, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $161,725,000)''.
       Page 288, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $323,450,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, this important amendment looks to the 
future and what we need for our 21st century clean energy economy. It 
redirects funds so we are sufficiently investing in renewable energy 
jobs of tomorrow.
  It is a simple change. The amendment simply moves $162 million to the 
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. It leaves the amount in 
that account, and the underlying bill still exceeds what the 
administration requested.
  Certainly my colleague from West Virginia understands that investing 
in the future in technology is extremely important.
  This bill provides $354 million more for fossil fuels. But by 
providing the additional resources for energy efficiency and renewable 
energy, we can better meet the needs of the future economy. I happen to 
agree, we need to invest in all of the above. But we also must invest 
in solar, wind, water, and geothermal. In fact, New Jersey is second in 
the Nation leading in solar and renewables. We must seek that cost-
effective way of reducing energy costs for our manufacturing plants, 
our office buildings, and certainly our homes.
  We shouldn't underfund our energy future, let's make that clear. We 
should invest in it, the way we are in this bill. But we can redirect a 
small portion of that for future needs of renewable energy.
  Tomorrow might be too late to do the investigation and that research. 
We can do it today because we need a long-term strategy that takes the 
best of what we do here in America and continues that. If it is clean 
coal, we can do that. If it is solar, we can do that. If it is wind, we 
can do that. We have the ability to do all that, and add high-paying 
jobs.
  Let's make this simple change and reallocate just a small portion of 
the fund. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and 
embrace the clean energy future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment.
  The fossil Energy Research and Development account actually helps the 
Nation use the full extent of our resources safely, wisely, and 
efficiently. I always hear Members say--and I have heard it several 
times tonight already--that they support an ``all-of-the-above'' energy 
strategy.
  Unfortunately, this amendment does just the opposite. It picks energy 
winners and losers. The level of funding for fossil Energy R&D in this 
year's bill recognizes the important role fossil energy plays in our 
Nation's future.
  At a time when fossil power generation is actually expanding around 
the globe, the activities funded in the bill advance our Nation's 
position as a leader in fossil energy technologies.
  I just hosted a conference in my home State of West Virginia on 
something that is getting a lot of attention lately: rare earth 
elements.
  I want everybody just to think about that phone that they hold in 
their hand or, if they are watching on TV, that TV in their home.
  Guess what. These phones and those TVs have what is called rare earth 
elements. And you would think by the term ``rare earth,'' it must mean, 
gosh, they are rare, hard to find.
  Guess what. Rare earth elements are found in many places. Amazingly, 
coal contains an abundant supply of rare earth elements.
  This is important to our national security because, currently, China 
has a monopoly on the rare earth element market. Ninety percent of all 
rare earth elements that are in every phone and every TV are controlled 
by China. But we know that coal, through research, can unlock an 
abundant supply of these critical elements that we need for everyday 
technology.
  So this just isn't about energy production. This is about everyday 
items that impact our life.

                              {time}  2030

  So for our Nation's security and electric grid reliability and use of 
our domestic fossil fuel resources, investment in fossil R&D is 
critical. Each of these

[[Page 11790]]

programs represent a partnership with the private sector that provides 
an even greater leverage to Federal funds. Therefore, I urge our 
Members to vote against the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment so we 
can support fossil energy R&D for our country and for our future.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chair, in many ways, I think my colleague from the 
other side of the aisle is agreeing with me. We need to do research, 
that R&D that he is speaking about, but it is about balance. The 
dollars that were in the underlying bill far exceeded that of what the 
administration asked for.
  We are simply saying, let's not pick one winner, let's pick them all, 
and see where that technology of tomorrow is taking us.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the Congresswoman from Maine (Ms. 
Pingree) for her remarks.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Norcross amendment, 
and I want to thank my colleague for calling attention to this issue 
and the importance of EERE.
  I represent the State of Maine, and we have over 3,000 miles of tidal 
coastline and millions of acres of forest. We are famous for our 
natural resources and the recreational opportunities that they provide, 
so it would be no surprise that these resources are providing our 
residents with an abundance of renewable energy sources.
  Our State's natural resources and our efforts have made us one of the 
leaders in renewable energy development. From solar, to wind, to tidal, 
to biomass, Maine is a leader in renewable energy.
  Because our State is largely a rural one, with many diverse energy 
needs in our rural and island communities, we are particularly 
attentive to rising energy costs and the need to have more ways to 
solve them.
  This amendment today would restore funds to the EERE account, and it 
will help the State of Maine, like so many other States like it that 
are working hard to move our energy policy to the 21st century.
  We have traditionally been in one of the most oil-dependent States in 
the country, but this will help us address rising energy costs with 
more tools and technologies at our disposal.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support renewable energy, and I 
support this amendment.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman from New Jersey's amendment.
  Let me simply state, while he politely suggests we have agreement, 
bottom line, his amendment guts the fossil energy R&D. It takes over 
$300 million out of the fossil research and development, the kinds of 
research and development that can generate rare Earth elements and 
other things that we have talked about, in addition to use for our 
power generation.
  Mr. Chair, I simply oppose this amendment and ask for its rejection.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have left.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chair, this is the first time I have ever heard 
``gutting'' by giving millions of additional dollars over the 
administration.
  I have worked in nuclear power houses, I have worked in coal power 
houses, gas-fired, I have worked in solar fields. This is absolutely 
about the future of our energy needs. We don't know what it holds, but 
I do know that investing in research and development is the way to go.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NORCROSS. 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 New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 40 
printed in House Report 115-259.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 286, line 24, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased $921,000,000)''.
       Page 297, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $921,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, some of us in this room are old enough to 
remember duck and cover. As kids, the notion was that, if you hid under 
a half-inch plywood piece of desk under a thermonuclear attack, you 
would be safe. It is not a particularly rational idea, but not much 
more rational than our current nuclear posture.
  For decades, Presidents and Members of Congress from both parties 
have worked together to prevent the use and spread of nuclear weapons 
and materials. Starting with President Reagan's leadership, American 
Presidents have reduced the size of America's nuclear arsenal from its 
Cold War peak. In fact, Republican Presidents have cut the arsenal far 
more aggressively than their Democratic counterparts, yet this year's 
Energy and Water bill doubles down on an outdated Cold War strategy by 
unnecessarily diverting precious resources to build new nukes.
  It remains unclear how these weapons will solve 21st century national 
security threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks, or global warming.
  Rather than wasting dollars to keep up the status quo, we must find 
ways to replace the U.S. nuclear arsenal while maintaining a force 
capable of deterring nuclear attack against the U.S. and its allies.
  In 2013, the Pentagon determined that the U.S. could reduce its 
deployed strategic nuclear force by one-third below its current levels 
and still meet security requirements. According to the former vice 
chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military utility of U.S. 
tactical nuclear weapons, such as the B61, is practically nil. Defense 
Secretary Mattis has raised doubts about the need for the new ICBMs, 
and they need to take a closer look at the new nuclear-armed cruise 
missile.
  Rather than wasting tax dollars to keep up the status quo, we must 
find ways to replace the U.S. nuclear arsenal while maintaining a force 
capable of nuclear deterrent.
  It is worse than that. This bill proposes to add nearly $1 billion to 
the nuclear weapons activities account by gutting the Department of 
Energy office responsible for research and application of technology to 
increase energy efficiency and renewable energy. DOE's EERE has 
traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support and is crucial to research and 
development in clean renewable energies, energy use reduction 
technologies, vehicle engines, geothermal technology, and advanced 
batteries.
  This is a government success story. The $12 billion we invested in 
EERE, through 2012, yielded a more than $230 billion benefit to the 
U.S. economy, and EERE has an annual return on investment of more than 
20 percent. Entire industries are built on the back of the work EERE 
does, stimulating a robust domestic clean energy economy.
  The role of EERE is also critical to furthering the transition to a 
low-carbon economy and ensuring long-term, robust, sustainable economic 
growth. That is why this amendment would take $922 million from nuclear 
weapons activities and give it back to EERE.
  Just to be clear, this would still be a cut to that office. The 
current bill funds EERE at $986 million less than the current enacted 
level, but it would go a long way towards fixing this mistake.

[[Page 11791]]

  Mr. Chair, I urge committee members to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment--
not just opposition to this amendment, but strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  This bill fully funds the request of $10.2 billion for weapons 
activities, which is, as the gentleman stated, an increase of $921 
million over fiscal year 2017.
  I have got to tell you, from his comments, you would think we were 
growing the nuclear stockpile. The reality is we are decreasing the 
size of the nuclear stockpile currently under the new START program. 
But even having done that, we have to fund the modernization of our 
nuclear stockpile, and it is one of my highest priorities in this bill.
  The activities the gentleman proposes to cut are the primary reasons 
the Energy and Water bill is being included as a division in the 
Defense minibus, because maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile is 
essential to our Nation's national security.
  The increase provided in this bill to weapons activities is needed to 
extend the life of four nuclear warheads and to address the continued 
deterioration of the infrastructure at the Department of Energy's 
nuclear sites. These investments are long overdue and must be funded if 
our Nation is to have a credible nuclear deterrent, regardless of the 
size of that nuclear deterrent.
  I would say that the Department of Defense is carrying out a nuclear 
posture review that will inform future funding needs. Until that 
concludes, there is no change in our Nation's nuclear defense 
requirements, and Congress, I believe, must fully fund those 
requirements if our Nation is to have a credible nuclear deterrent.
  Increases are also needed, as I said, to address the aging 
infrastructure at the Department of Energy's nuclear energy sites.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment that the gentleman from 
Illinois is offering and would encourage my colleagues to vote against 
it.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, what the gentleman is 
talking about has been done many times. Again, in 2013, the Pentagon 
said we could do this with one-third of the weapons we have now.
  The cost of restoring a weapon like the B61 is more than its weight 
in gold. We have already been told we have too many. So the plan here 
is, let's restore as many as possible, build as many as we possibly 
can, and maybe in the future we will be told again that we don't need 
this many. In the meantime, we are using those resources to cut 
necessary programs.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for Members' support, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I would say that the Secretary of Energy is 
required to report to the President on the safety and reliability of 
our nuclear stockpile. This is part of that requirement by the 
Department of Energy so that they can assure the President that our 
nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. Modernizing these nuclear 
weapons makes sense.
  Now, we can sit and argue whether we need all these nuclear weapons 
or not--I happen to think we can get by on quite a number fewer nuclear 
weapons--but we still have to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile 
that we currently have and let the Department of Defense do their 
Nuclear Posture Review and make a determination of what ought to be the 
ultimate number of nuclear weapons we have, but, as long as we have 
this, we have got to make sure they are safe and they are reliable.
  Mr. Chair, I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 
printed in House Report 115-259.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 286, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $986,292,000)''.
       Page 288, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $634,600,000)''.
       Page 297, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $352,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment would simply restore the funding cuts to the 
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy account just to fund at the same 
levels it was funded last year. That is $986 million. And I will tell 
you where we find those funds and take it from in a minute. It takes 
them from two programs: the fossil fuel energy and research account and 
the nuclear weapons account.
  So we should invest in our future for energy efficiency and renewable 
energy rather than throwing more money at the past and into nuclear 
weapons.
  Fossil fuel research and development is a dead end for America, for 
our economy, for the clean air that we need, and for our water. 
Continuing to fund fossil fuels, whether it makes them marginally 
cleaner or not, is simply throwing money at the past rather than the 
future.
  Regardless of how clean we make fossil fuel extraction, it is never 
as clean or, more importantly, as sustainable as renewable energy, and 
definitely won't be as cheap or sustainable as clean energy.
  I am the proud sponsor of a bill for our country to reach 100 percent 
renewable energy by 2050, but to be able to do that, we need the 
investment in research and development.
  Frankly, investing in nuclear weapons when we already have enough 
nuclear capabilities to destroy every man, woman, and child on this 
planet seven times over is simply wasteful. Nuclear weapons receive 
over $10 billion, while renewable energy receives a measly $986 
million.
  I was talking to one of my constituents a little while ago, Nancy 
Cronk from Colorado, and she agreed that we simply spend too much on 
potentially having the capability of destroying the world through 
nuclear weapons, rather than investing in a renewable energy future.
  We don't live in Cold War times. We don't need Cold War-level 
spending for facilities that the military hasn't used in over 20 years.

                              {time}  2045

  We should be following the advice, in this case, of the Department of 
Defense and focusing on the renewable energy account, which helps fund 
national labs like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden.
  The most recent study of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's 
economic impact alone shows it totaled over $800 million nationally. In 
addition, CU Boulder and NREL jointly operate the Renewable and 
Sustainable Energy Institute, which is located in Colorado, which helps 
advance renewable energy science, engineering, and analysis through 
industry partnerships and education.
  That is the future of our country, Mr. Chairman, and the future of 
the world. And by undercutting our investment in our future and 
throwing money at the past, and being able to kill every man, woman, 
and child seven times instead of six times, we are losing the forest 
through the trees, and we are making our country less secure, not more 
secure.
  The Building Technologies Offices, NREL, and many others receiving 
funds under this account do amazing work to pull us into the 21st 
century, like using 3D printing for wind blades.

[[Page 11792]]

Not only that, their work helps save consumers money because of energy 
efficiency.
  In fact, an estimate shows that from 2009 to 2015, the work of the 
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy program has saved consumers more 
than $543 billion and reduced carbon pollution by 2.3 billion metric 
tons.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the EERE. I actually 
like the program. But we had to make some difficult decisions, and our 
highest priority is maintaining our nuclear stockpile and making sure 
that our defense activities were fully funded.
  Secondly, it was making sure that the Army Corps of Engineers was 
fully funded at the WRDA level that our colleagues here on the floor 
always insist on. That means we had to make some difficult decisions 
within the Department of Energy. EERE, we did the best we could.
  But when the gentleman says, you know, we are not living in the Cold 
War anymore, so we don't need the nuclear weapons and stuff and we 
don't need these facilities and stuff, you are right, we are not living 
in the Cold War anymore. It is scarier times right now than it was in 
the Cold War.
  You never need those facilities until you need those facilities, and 
you better have had them by then. That is the problem. It is not 
looking forward.
  So I oppose this amendment because we have done our best within the 
weapons activities to make sure that we do what our Nation requires, 
and that is to make sure that we have a safe, reliable, and secure 
nuclear stockpile.
  And we ought to let the Defense Department come out with their 
Nuclear Posture Review and tell us what they believe we need as a 
weapons system, altogether, when that review comes out.
  I oppose it also because it takes money for the arguments made by my 
friends from West Virginia, because it takes money out of the fossil 
energy research. As they said every time I have asked the Department of 
Energy, ``What do you think the amount of energy we are going to 
consume over the next 20 or 30 years that comes from hydrocarbons, 
coal, and natural gas, is going to be in the future,'' it is actually a 
larger part, not a smaller part.
  And while I have been to NREL, I think NREL is a great lab. They do 
some incredible work out there. We want to support them. We want to 
make sure that they stay open and that they can do the job that we have 
asked them to do and that our other labs can also.
  But this amendment, I think, is directly the wrong direction to go.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
  By my calculation, this is about the third or fourth amendment from 
the minority trying to take money out of a very important future-
looking initiative, the fossil energy R&D, and redirect it elsewhere. 
They keep trying to raid this important funding.
  I am sitting here with my colleague from West Virginia, who NETL is 
actually physically in his district. There is no stronger champion of 
NETL than the gentleman from West Virginia. This is hundreds of jobs in 
our State, in his district, but the impact of their work reaches across 
the country and literally around the world.
  I spoke on a previous attack on this funding a moment ago. I defend 
strongly the work of the fossil energy R&D. And to suggest this is just 
looking to yesterday is missing the point that I made a moment ago 
talking about rare earth elements and unlocking the potential that 
these fossil resources have in so many ways, not just energy 
production.
  So I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for recognizing and 
supporting fossil energy R&D and my colleague from West Virginia, who 
is such a staunch supporter of NETL, and my ability to work with him.
  Please, I encourage people to reject the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for recognizing the 
importance of the Energy Efficient & Renewable Energy account. It is an 
incredibly high priority for economic development. We talked about the 
jobs and technology transfers that come out of that fund. We also 
talked about its need for energy independence in our future.
  I hope the chairman is willing to work on finding other agreeable 
funding sources to hold that account harmless and plus it up.
  I want to highlight a couple of other important projects funded from 
the EERE account, large and small. One example is the EERE's Vehicle 
Technologies Office which awarded $500,000. It doesn't sound like a 
lot, but it makes an enormous difference on the ground for the Clean 
City Coalition to support Project FEVER, to foster the development of 
Colorado State's acceleration of plug-in electric vehicles, which are 
in extremely high demand.
  The Clean Cities project helped to develop a comprehensive electric 
vehicle strategy, including supply readiness and implementation. The 
project has already saved over 7.5 billion gallons of petroleum.
  These are just some of the many projects that we should be focused on 
because they are truly our future. Rather than expanding our nuclear 
arsenal, rather than throwing money into the past with additional 
fossil fuel research, we can move toward cleaner air, cleaner water, 
more jobs, a stronger economy, and energy independence through clean, 
renewable energy.
  That is why I ask you to support my amendment that will increase EERE 
funding and decrease funding for fossil fuel research and unnecessary 
and dangerous nukes that would destroy the world more than is 
reasonably needed as a deterrent.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42 
printed in House Report 115-259.
  Mr. McKINLEY. 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:

       On page 286, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $33,400,000)''.
       On page 288 line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $33,400,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. We are merely 
restoring the Fossil Energy Research & Development program back to the 
levels of 2017--merely back to the levels of 2017.
  We must put it in perspective. It is still $300 million less than it 
was under President Bush.
  Let's also put it in perspective. As I showed earlier on the chart, 
the consumption of fossil fuels make up 81 percent of all the country's 
energy consumption; 81 percent fossil fuels of coal, natural gas, and 
oil. But the level of research is only at 18 percent of the money that 
we have currently.
  Now, I just heard a minute ago someone say this is pretty balanced. 
Look, I may be just an engineer, but I don't think 18 percent is the 
equivalent of 81 percent. There is something wrong with that.
  I am not here to argue that America shouldn't be investing in 
renewables and nuclear. That wouldn't be appropriate. But the reality 
is that America and the entire world will be relying on fossil energy 
for years to come.

[[Page 11793]]

  The Energy Information Administration estimated that by 2040, fossil 
energy is still going to make up 78 percent of the world's consumption. 
So shouldn't it be America's goal to lead the world, to have that 
mantle of leadership, to develop the technologies that we can export to 
other countries around the world that are going to continue to use coal 
and gas and oil in the cleanest and most efficient way? Shouldn't we, 
again, be that global leader on this?
  But we can't do this without leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, let's consider the history of this, the fossil research 
from the Federal Government. Just remember the threat years ago, back 
in the eighties, we had of acid rain. It was the research in our 
Federal labs all across America that reduced the emissions of SOx and 
NOX gases and addressing cleaned up acid rain and reduced 
it.
  The reduction in CO2 emissions around the globe and around 
America have come as a result of fossil fuel research. On a per capita 
basis today, we are now emitting--on a per capita basis, this is the 
lowest level of CO2 emissions we have had in over 50 years, 
thanks to fossil fuel research.
  And the shale gas revolution that made America the biggest producer 
of gas in the world, it originated in our Federal laboratories in 
research. That is just part of where we have been.
  Now go into the future. Someone said this is a fuel of the past. How 
can it be when the R&D money--look what they are working on in our labs 
all across America, virtually in every one of our districts across this 
country. We are doing a carbon capture, utilization, and storage. We 
are doing chemical looping. They are studying and understanding methane 
hydrates.
  You talked earlier about rare earth elements are being detected now 
in coal seams all across America.
  What about oxy-combustion?
  All of that is coming out of current research, fresh research that we 
will be able to export around the world so that other countries will be 
able to burn their coal more cleanly.
  So, look, Congress should not be in the way, picking winners or 
losers, and it shouldn't jeopardize the work of our laboratories. If we 
are serious about reducing emissions, Congress should be putting more 
money into this program, not reducing it.
  In an ideal world, the funding level for R&D should be much higher. 
As I said, under President Bush it was $300 million more than it is 
today. But I understand the fiscal constraints we have.
  So let's utilize our domestic energy source, energy supply in the 
most efficient and clean way possible. We do that through our research 
from our Federal laboratories.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I respect Congressman McKinley's amendment and his desire 
to help America and help his own State. And for my entire career, I 
have voted for clean coal research and development because southern 
Ohio has a whole lot of Btus underground in the form of coal.
  However, I really object to the gentleman taking the funds from the 
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy account. I would like you to know 
that that account, in this bill, is cut $986 million below last year's 
level, and that is a deep concern because that is the part of our 
economy that is growing.
  Ten percent of the jobs produced in the energy sector are in 
renewables, and we actually employ more people in solar and in wind 
energy than we do in coal extraction. So we know that a major part of 
our future lies in new energy technologies, these developing 
technologies which have been proving themselves.
  An additional cut of $33.4 million in the EERE account would further 
weaken these new technologies. And I will guarantee you that the 
technologies are so valuable that the Russians and the Chinese are 
hacking into these companies repeatedly because of their importance to 
the future, and they recognize where the future is headed. And we have 
got a real job on our hands to hold on to these technologies because of 
that and because of their market manipulation.
  China is a great market manipulator. She has a state-run economy, and 
it is not fair. If they can't steal the technology directly--if you 
invest over there and you take your technology there, they steal your 
IT there.

                              {time}  2100

  So just since 2003, our country has spent $2.6 trillion importing 
foreign petroleum. When you think about the importance of America being 
energy independent here at home, coal, clean coal, has a role to play 
in that, but these new technologies have a major role to play as well. 
We all support a diverse energy portfolio to eliminate our reliance on 
imported energy--some would say addiction to imported energy. We have 
been breaking that addiction.
  We should be advancing technology to clean up fossil energy, yes, and 
this bill already does that with sufficient funding to the fossil 
energy accounts. Our country should be leading investment in these 
technologies, not just for our own energy security, but also for 
economic opportunities and the jobs that this expanding market is 
already providing us.
  We can't really afford to cede this market to any other country in 
the world, and I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just close quickly by saying we 
are not talking about West Virginia. We are talking about all across 
the country. These laboratories are located in colleges and 
universities all across America.
  Coal is something that is expanding. Our exports are up 58 percent. 
People around the world are going to use coal. I think it is the 
responsibility for us to show them how to burn it cleanly. China is 
going to increase their use by 43 percent. India is going to double its 
consumption in that same timeframe.
  When you compare the amount of research, only 18 percent currently of 
all the Federal dollars for research is in fossil fuel, but 56 percent 
is in renewable. That is not balanced.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Weber of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Donovan, 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. 
3219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________