Fairness to Veterans for Infrastructure Investment Act of 2013

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Last year, wind energy was the largest source of new generating capacity in our country, comprising 42 percent of all new generating capacity. Overall, America's wind energy capacity grew by 28 percent. That's an incredible record, and it demonstrates that wind energy is an affordable, reliable source of power that produces no carbon or other air pollution.

But the recent success of wind energy in our country doesn't mean we should stop investing in it. In fact, we need to do more, not less, to develop and deploy new wind energy technologies, and we're busy doing that along the Great Lakes.

Wind energy will play an important role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy. According to the American Wind Energy Association, this year alone U.S. wind projects will avoid nearly 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide being poured into the atmosphere--the equivalent of reducing power sector emissions by over 4 percent or taking more than 17 million cars off the road.

In addition to cutting carbon pollution, investing in wind energy is a boon to our economy. In 2012, the industry supported more than 80,000 full-time equivalent jobs, including more than 25,000 manufacturing jobs at more than 550 facilities. As the global clean energy economy grows, the United States has a tremendous opportunity to attract more investment here and create even more manufacturing jobs, including in Kentucky and Ohio.

But we are at risk of missing out on this opportunity. At a time when the global clean energy market is getting more competitive, the United States has started to lag behind. In 2012, China's level of clean energy financing surpassed our country's for the first time.

Year after year, some House Republicans have pushed budgets and appropriation bills that would slash funding for clean energy and energy-efficiency programs. This appropriation bill is no exception, and Mr. Whitfield's amendment just takes it one step further. Eliminating all Department of Energy wind energy programs is exactly the wrong approach and one that will hurt our Nation's competitiveness in this growing market. It certainly isn't consistent with an all-of- the-above energy strategy.

Some may argue it makes sense to cut government investment in wind energy since it is a more mature technology than some emerging technologies, but wind energy isn't operating on a level playing field. The United States currently provides enormous government subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuels. In fact, the International Monetary Fund just issued a report finding that the United States provides more subsidies to fossil fuels than any other country in the world, even China. Our annual subsidies total over--get ready for this--one-half of a trillion dollars.

We shouldn't cede the growing global clean energy market to China or make any of our other competitors happy.

And let me just say this, as I know quite a bit about this and Ohio has been fast about wind energy. I represent the Saudi Arabia of wind in the Great Lakes, which is called Lake Erie. Lake Erie also happens to be the warmest of the lakes, so it's a bird haven. On the Mississippi Flyway, we have more fish, fauna, and birds than all the other Great Lakes combined. And with that Mississippi Flyway coming up, we have lots of eagles, we have lots of different types of birds. The cormorants are some that are problematic, but, nonetheless, we are really a bird haven. We've learned that the wind turbines don't cause us any trouble. We have to situate them sometimes 3 miles from shore.

The biggest killer of birds nationwide is cats. So if you really want to look at where the problem is, maybe we need more cat control. But honestly, for the number of turbines that we've erected, what happens, especially when you have a set of turbines operating in the air, they create an updraft and the birds--they are pretty smart--sort of fly above the wind. They're amazing. They float on the pathway that the turbines generate. In addition to that, there are new technologies like strobe lights that are actually affixed to the turbines, and they keep birds away. It's almost like a silent radar in a way. So there are new technologies that are being developed to deal with that.

We actually want birds. We want turbines. We want clean energy. We want all types of energy in our region. We haul coal out of Kentucky to many of our power plants. So we have an all-of-the-above strategy in our region, but we really welcome the wind opportunities.

Cleveland, Ohio, and an investment group called LEEDCo is doing everything possible to move additional turbines onto the Great Lakes.

So I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote against it. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and wish to say, first of all, it is unnecessary because there are no funds in the FY14 bill that are allocated to be used for nuclear weapons reductions below the New START levels.

The amendment, in my opinion, is constitutionally questionable because it impinges on the President's ability to set U.S. nuclear weapons policy and usurp's the President's ability to retire, dismantle, or eliminate non-deployed nuclear weapons.

This amendment restricts the President's constitutional authority to negotiate international agreements, including sole executive agreements for arms reductions; and it impinges on the President's authority to determine the number of strategic delivery vehicles needed to meet national security requirements and implement changes in those forces, as appropriate. And it limits the President's authority to determine appropriate force structure to meet nuclear deterrence requirements and to set nuclear employment policy, an authority exercised by every President in the nuclear age. Frankly, it is bad policy.

Blocking nuclear weapons reduction is out of step with post-Cold War and post-9/11 security environment. Secretary Schultz, Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Nunn, and Secretary Perry all have encouraged further nuclear weapons reductions stating in 2007:

Unless urgent new actions are taken, the United States soon

will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be

more precarious and psychologically disorienting, and

economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence.

The amendment disregards potential military requirements, including potential Strategic Command recommendations, and instead imposes congressional requirements.

It seems to restrict any reductions below the New START to bilateral negotiated reductions with Russia. So in effect it outsources decisions on U.S. nuclear force structure to Russia, and it requires maintenance of nuclear weapons levels that might be costly and unnecessary in an era of budget constraints.

I think the amendment is poorly written and will not achieve its objectives. It fails to ban unilateral reductions by referencing the ACA section 303(b) of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.

It fails to keep deployed forces at 1,550. And, as written, it allows the whole stockpile to decline to that level since that's the limit in New START. This would entail retaining a total stockpile of 1,550 with a deployed force of 1,550, which simply does not make sense. Neither the active nor the inactive stockpile is limited by New START. The treaty limits the number of operationally deployed warheads and delivery vehicles. While operationally deployed warheads are part of the active stockpile, the size of the stockpile itself is not limited. Supporting 1,550 deployed warheads would require the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to maintain an active stockpile in excess of 1,550 warheads. New START also does not count nonstrategic warheads, so it is unclear whether the amendment intends to count the nonstrategic warheads under the New START limit.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit some additional comments for the Record. Obviously, I disagree with the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Talking Points Against the Turner Amendment on Nuclear Weapons

Reductions

Turner Amendment language: Sec._. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the active and inactive stockpiles of the United States below that required

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I'm not quite sure why he's doing this, but, you know, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $3.25 billion in borrowing authority to modernize the electricity grid.

I believe your amendment focuses on WAPA, the Western Area Power marketing authority, solely; is that correct, sir?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I thank you very much.

Now, I don't live out there. I'm from a part of the country that doesn't have one of these, but most of America is covered by power marketing authorities. If you really look at California, if you look at the TVA, regions of the country that have these borrowing authorities, and the way they work is that the ratepayers then pay back, over time, the costs of that investment.

We have to invest and modernize our grid. That part of the country is growing, and, frankly, they have been returning dollars at a fairly steady rate. I looked at those figures about a year ago.

And with the increase in renewables in the West, there's also a need to alter the grid and its ability to accept new forms of power. That part of the country is growing. The population is just exploding out there. And so, therefore, we're going to have a greater use of power and more of a need to put it on to the system.

So I don't see why the gentleman who comes from Louisiana--now, I know you've got a lot of oil drilling down there in the gulf and a lot of us have voted for that, but I don't really understand the purpose of the gentleman's amendment.

I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I hear what the gentleman is saying, but they actually do pay it back through usage. Just like you pay a utility bill and it goes back to the company, essentially WAPA is a company, and it borrows and then it pays back. And so these funds are going to be paid back over time.

I wish I had one in my area. I think it would really help us out a lot.

But I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think it would be very counterproductive to hurt any part of our country and their power grid system, their ability to modernize their power grid system.

The gentleman has, I think, Southeast Power marketing authority. I don't know if that covers Louisiana or not. But different parts of the country have different systems that are in place, and I wouldn't want to take away the West's ability to power themselves and to do so in a very cost-effective manner.

Well, I would beg to disagree. Reclaiming my time, I'm glad the gentleman stated that, but I think that you will hear strongly from them that they, in fact, are paying back, and they have a good rate of repayment.

I remember our former colleague, Norm Dicks, if I said anything against WAPA, boy, I'd be in big trouble because they do have a very good rate of repayment back. And, in fact, they have returned money consistently and paid back their original loan. So I think that they're free-floating now, and I think they have a very, very good record.

So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment very strongly in support of our colleagues in the West and their need for power and modernizing their electricity grid. And I urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I join Chairman Frelinghuysen and Representative Himes in emphasizing the importance of the Army Corps of Engineers projects.

The Army Corps of Engineers has an important presence in the Great Lakes region, operating an electrified barrier in the Chicago Area Waterway System to keep the invasive Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes and devastating the fishing industry and ecosystem of one-fifth of the world's freshwater. So I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut for acknowledging the importance of Corps projects beyond the eastern seaboard.

I agree that the backlog of Army Corps projects is preventing the Corps from taking on new projects in a time-effective manner, which is particularly problematic as we approach hurricane season once again. I look forward to working with Mr. Himes in deciding how we can ensure new projects get the funding they need while also honoring those worthy projects that have been waiting for some time now.

I rise to express my opposition to the gentleman's amendment and my support for a river system that works.

The Water Resources Development Act of 2007--which was passed with such bipartisan support that it overcame a Presidential veto-- authorized the Corps to undertake the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan and develop the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee to consult on the study. This authority provided a venue for collaboration between a 70-member stakeholder group of tribes, States, stakeholder groups, and Federal agencies to develop a shared vision and comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Missouri River ecosystem.

By prohibiting the Corps from expending any 2013 funds on a study and a committee, we continue the delay that started with the same shortsighted amendment that was adopted last year, sadly. This will lead to further erosion of trust in the delicate partnerships in the basin.

While the Corps will continue to comply with the endangered species requirements through other activities, I believe there is a role for a long-term plan for the basin. We face the same sort of issue in my part of the country where we have rivers and lakes that carry commercial trade, but we also have an ecosystem that we are a part of. And we are learning, as a world, how to deal with the natural systems of which we are all a part.

So I think what's been incredible with the Missouri River System is to see some of the flooding that has been prevented because of the Corps' work for a century now. I think all the American people support efforts to try to contain the power of that river at times when it could flood communities and harm both the people and our developed environment.

But I don't really support the gentleman's amendment because I do think there is a role for the ecosystem to be contemplated when long- term planning is done. With what's happening with rainfall, what's happening with population explosion and so forth, it's more incumbent upon us to work together and try to figure out how to work through those partnerships.

So, sadly, I oppose the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

LDRD is an important program for the labs to recruit and retain the top talent that is needed to accomplish their mission. I join the chair in agreeing to work with our colleagues so that the national security capabilities of the labs are not adversely impacted by the levels allowed for LDRD.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I am actually very familiar with the effect of rising water costs on a community. In my own hometown in Ohio, water costs will increase by 56.5 percent over the next 5 years, with the average ratepayers bill increasing from $125 to $300 per year. Such a large increase takes a significant toll on hard-pressed families, especially on seniors living on fixed incomes. This is being done in order to construct major water facilities that are seriously out of date and in need of replacement.

The amendment being offered here tonight must be viewed, I think, in terms of equity. Currently, the vast majority of local communities benefiting from water supply from Corps of Engineers projects are charged fees for storage.

The Corps is working to review the current policy case by case in favor of a more consistent policy across the country. My community receives nothing from the Corps in the way of water storage or capacity. The region in question has already benefited from cost-free water storage over several years. It seems to be unfair to provide special treatment to one specific region, or create an exception for one region, from a nationwide policy.

Given the sharp fiscal constraints to agencies funded by this bill, it is particularly difficult to justify such a localized subsidy because we have pressing needs across our country and, frankly, not sufficient funds to meet all the water needs facing our Nation. Frankly, I think these water needs are going to be very significant as time goes on because our population will double. It already has doubled since the last century, and tripled. By 2050, they expect 500 million people to be living in this country. The amount of water isn't going to change. It's a resource

that just keeps replenishing. We have to treat it because we have more people and it's going to cost more to do this.

I respectfully rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment, urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise this evening in opposition to my Buckeye State colleague, Congressman Chabot, and I'm somewhat perplexed by this amendment. I don't really understand why he's offering it. I have to oppose him. If we look at the Appalachian Regional Commission, it actually benefits Ohio. It benefits some of those river counties that have historically been left out of the economic mainstream.

If you come to Ohio, it's rather interesting, because if you look at the State there are the big cities of Cleveland, which I'm privileged to represent a portion of, Columbus which is the State capitol, and Cincinnati, where the gentleman is from. There is a story that goes that those are the Big Three, and then there's the other part of the State that kind of winds its way from Toledo down toward Marietta. And the closer you get to Kentucky and Tennessee, the situation gets a little bit rugged.

In fact, I had occasion to travel there this year for the sad occasion of our former colleague Congressman Charlie Wilson's funeral. And I remember how hard Charlie worked to try to represent his district. In just getting to where we had to go for the ceremonies, I was struck again by how that part of Ohio is so inaccessible, just to try to move through the territory and get to where we were going. When I finally got to the high school where the ceremonies were held, and as I walked into the high school, I saw the bricks that Charlie had used to help start a project to help promote education in his region because there was no institution of higher learning. They had to link up to institutions in other parts of the State.

In just driving around and looking at that part of Ohio, the road system doesn't quite connect as it does from the other Big Three Cs. The other portion of the State doesn't work that way.

So the Appalachian Regional Commission meets a very important need, even though it's not a part of the State that I live in. There are very hardworking people. Economic opportunities, especially in the hillier parts, is more difficult to achieve. The Appalachian Regional Commission spans several counties and several States, and it tries to bring hope and opportunity to these regions.

A great part about our country is we're supposed to take care of one another, and the Appalachian Regional Commission provides a mechanism now going over several decades that has truly made a difference. But I can guarantee you that for the parts of Ohio that are included in its boundaries, the work is not finished. And with what's been happening in certain sectors of the economy, in many of these hollows and many of these nooks and crannies, life has gotten harder, not easier.

I want to say that I don't know what motivates the gentleman's amendment this evening, but I really do think it would hurt Ohio, and it would hurt a lot of these counties, spanning into other States that are covered. And the other commissions that exist are not parts of America--take the Denali Commission or the Northern Border Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority--these are not areas that are easily lifted in terms of their economic performance, and they need help.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I want to thank all those who worked with the Appalachian Regional Commission, particularly in my own State. I know it's not always easy, and we want to do what we can to support them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am happy to yield to Congressman Kelly offering the amendment or Congressman Nolan, who spoke on the amendment, and to say that this amendment gives us an opportunity to talk about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the importance of all of our harbors, including those in the Great Lakes.

I spoke earlier today, and I said I don't know how long it's going to take to narrow the channel any more. Some of the ports I represent, what has been happening is that with less money, the width has been narrowing. I said so maybe our ships will actually look like

this some day, rather than having a bow that looks like this. There just simply aren't enough funds to dredge all of the ports that are necessary. And, in fact, there have been some harbors which have actually shut down.

So this gives us an opportunity to talk about the necessity of a review of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and its future use and what we might do in order to get a better allocation to our accounts so that we can take care of all of these ports that are being pressed around the country.

If the gentlemen have anything additional that they would like to put on the record at this point regarding the ports in the Great Lakes or elsewhere, I would be more than pleased to yield to them.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time, I hope the administration is hearing this and the Corps is hearing this and they work with us on a better allocation and not invading the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for other purposes.

I would hate to deny the administration the right to think about this and to make recommendations to us. I don't think that it is the intent of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) to prevent any oversight or activities by the administration to better manage the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I don't think that is his intent. I think his intent is to ensure that these dollars are spent for harbor maintenance.

But if, in fact, the administration has a good idea they want to throw in to help us with this, you wouldn't deny them the right to do that; am I correct? We need their cooperation in order to make this work.

I yield to the gentleman.

Congressman Kelly, your intention is not to preclude the administration from working with us on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund if they have a creative idea that would help us?

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm glad we've had this discussion tonight. Others have heard it. I think it will help encourage administration cooperation, being the Representative who has the ports of Lake Erie in her district--Cleveland, Lorain, Sandusky, Toledo, and many points in between--I fully understand the challenge here.

One of our budgetary challenges is we have to have a budget that allocates these dollars, and right now that hasn't come from your side of the aisle. So in order to use these dollars, it has to be incorporated in the budget resolution that comes to us. Our mark was too

low in our bill in order to be able to move those dollars. So let's work on that with the Budget Committee, as well, so we get that allocation and it comes to our subcommittee. That's something that we can all work on on both sides of the aisle.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. If the proposed amendment would take effect, the Corps would be prohibited from requiring a permit for discharges into waters of the United States from certain agricultural activities.

The Clean Water Act already exempts certain agricultural activities from regulation unless those activities change the flow of navigable waters, then those agricultural activities, such as construction of stock ponds or irrigation ditches, construction of forest roads and reconstruction of recently damaged parts of levees, dikes, and dams, must be regulated.

The Clean Water Act already exempts agriculture business from many of the regulations imposed on others. This amendment would take away the commonsense safeguards built into the Clean Water Act to prevent the negative impact of some agricultural activities, and we have all been witness to some of those.

So I believe the Clean Water Act strikes the right balance in giving relief to agricultural businesses already and, therefore, urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the King amendment would provide no funds to be used for shallow water habitat construction if that involves sediment or soil dumping into the Missouri River.

In order to meet the obligations established within the 2003 amended biological opinion, the construction of shallow water habitat is an integral part of compliance. There are two ways to build shallow water habitats: either through flow actions or through mechanical actions.

The Corps has been implementing habitat construction to avoid manipulating flows mainly because of concerns expressed by the State of Missouri. This amendment would prevent the construction of shallow water habitat, leaving the pallid sturgeon fish unprotected.

I understand that farmers in Iowa have concerns that the Army Corps is not creating these habitats in an ecological manner, but the Army Corps studies show there will only be minimal increases in nutrients carried by the river during project construction.

If the Corps cannot put sediment into the Missouri River, it will have to dispose of the sediment in upland areas. There will be increased cost for each construction project. Disposal in upland areas would increase costs by requiring material to be placed in trucks and hauled offsite to upland disposal areas, or adjacent to the habitat projects. Project cost would be increased by 300 percent to 500 percent, depending on site specifics.

So disposing of sediment in upland areas will also result in increased negative environmental impacts. Disposal of material in upland areas will require disturbances of existing mitigation sites and increases the risk of damage to adjacent wetlands. It may also require additional land acquisition for disposal areas.

For all these reasons, we have to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment and to stress the importance of ocean policy. We already see acidification, low dissolved oxygen, harmful algae blooms, and dead zones in the Gulf, the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, and throughout our Nation's coastal waterways.

The National Ocean Policy would help us better address the cumulative threats to our aquatic ecosystems from overfishing, coastal development, storm water runoff, carbon emissions, and pollutants in our waterways. The implementation of the National Ocean Policy will help to protect, maintain, and restore our ocean and coastal ecosystems, systems which provide important jobs, food, recreation, and which serve as the foundation for a substantial part of our Nation's economy. Only healthy, functioning, and resilient marine and freshwater ecosystems can support the fisheries we all depend upon so heavily.

There are some reports that show that over half of the fish in the oceans have been fished out. If you go to any supermarket, you're going to find on the shelves--the fish that are there--strange names you've never even heard of before because so many of the varieties that were plentiful are simply fished out forever.

The core approach of the National Ocean Policy is to improve stewardship of our ocean's coasts, islands, and Great Lakes by directing government agencies with differing mandates to coordinate and work better together. The National Ocean Policy creates no new authorities. It's about increased coordination among existing agencies, the sort of effort that should be taking place on a Federal level in order to reduce inefficiency, waste, and redundancy between agencies.

This is an issue of bringing people together so that all of the ocean's users, including recreational and commercial fishermen, boaters, industries, scientists, and the public can better plan for, manage, harmonize, and sustain uses of oceans and coastal resources.

When you think about it, we now have 310 million people in our country. We look at the global populations in the billions. With the rate of population increase rising, more and more fishing going on--and how many of us come from regions where we see that fisheries have shut down? And that in fact what used to exist in Massachusetts, exists no more. That there are places on the West Coast where the fisheries that had been there are shut down. That's because there's so much draw on that life source in the ocean that we have to pay attention as a world how we are going to feed the generations of the future. This is not a casual engagement. This is downright serious business.

I would say that the gentleman's amendment is not forward-looking. I don't know what he has in mind here. But the better we understand what is going on and what Congressman Claude Pepper used to call Planet Ocean, where 70 percent of our Earth is actually water, much of it impinged now by pollutants and so forth. We have a responsibility to the globe. This is not simple.

Prior generations haven't had to think this way, but we have to think this way because there are many more draws on these resources. Look at the problems we've had with some countries going out and doing the fishing and just taking fish to one country and not allowing other fishermen to have equal access, even in the Great Lakes that I represent. It's amazing. Every single year, the number of fish you're allowed to catch goes down, because we've both got more fisherman, because the population is increasing, but there are fewer fish to draw from those lakes. And there are substantial threats in the form of invasive species.

So the gentleman and I are on different sides of this. I think it's important to understand the oceans and to coordinate among our agencies to put the best intelligence forward because the globe is changing and we have to be smart enough to deal with those ecosystem changes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I support the gentleman's amendment. As he said, we had a similar provision in last year's bill, and we know the concerns are acute in the power marketing regions.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment because I know my colleague, my friend from Kentucky, has an incredible reputation of being the friend of animals and birds. Obviously, we are concerned about the issues he has raised.

Our bill already reduces the Wind Energy program from $59 million to $24 million, a cut of nearly 60 percent. His amendment goes a step further by eliminating the Wind Energy program entirely, which would result in the termination of the first offshore wind at-scale demonstration in the United States and would result in a dramatic drop- off in the U.S. deployment of wind energy systems. This setback would come at a time when wind is renewable energy's fastest growing sector.

I oppose my colleague's amendment. I am certainly aware of his heartfelt concern. We are listening to what he said, but I still oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I support the gentleman's amendment, and I salute his leadership in this area, both in this Congress and the past Congresses.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the

gentleman from New Mexico's amendment.

The gentleman makes the case that there's a need for this infrastructure, and maybe there is; but the Corps of Engineers has no particular expertise or reason for being the funding source. Especially when we're looking at such tight budgets to begin with, we must focus the Corps' funding on activities which have the greatest impact on our economy and public safety, namely, navigation and flood control--our historic responsibility. So I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I'm pleased to accept the amendment from my friend from New York State and his annual advocacy on behalf of this cause.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I'm pleased to support the amendment. And let me thank the gentleman from Florida for his advocacy for his own congressional district and his State, and I commend him.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. We've gone over this ground several times so I'll be brief.

All of us here strongly support investments in the Corps' work and their projects, particularly those projects with the greatest benefit to public safety and the economy, namely flood control and navigation. But this amendment proposes to pay for additional Corps construction by diverting funds needed for our nuclear weapons stockpile for national security. And that is the most critical priority in our bill.

And so I strongly oppose the amendment. His amendment is unacceptable because it is an issue of national security, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Himes of Connecticut makes a good point about the importance of making infrastructure investments before major disasters can occur. I share his concerns about the backlog of Army Corps of Engineers projects, particularly in the backdrop of communities throughout the New England and the Mid-Atlantic area that continue to rebuild after one of the worst storms in our Nation's history.

I want to assure the gentleman that the committee's position on New Starts is reconsidered each and every year. We take a look at the funding requirements of ongoing studies and projects, new studies and projects, and overall funding levels for certain accounts.

I commend the gentleman for his attention to this issue. I look forward to working with him to address these new needs at the earliest appropriate time, and I yield back to the gentleman.

I appreciate my colleagues from New Mexico raising their concern for the long-term vitality of the National Nuclear Security Administration's laboratories.

I look forward to working with both of you to make sure that the levels allowed for the Laboratory Directed Research and Development, or the LDRD, program do not adversely impact the national security capability of these remarkable laboratories.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment would cut funding, which has already been cut today, for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, on top of reductions that we also took of 16 percent in our bill before we brought our bill to the floor.

We all know that American families and businesses are struggling to pay high gas prices. This Fossil Energy Research and Development program holds the potential, once and for all, to prevent future high gas prices and substantially increase our energy security. To cut it further would be dangerous and counterproductive, so I strongly oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia for his continued leadership on fossil fuel research. He knows it firsthand. He is a strong advocate. He is a strong supporter of NETL, of which he speaks, which is an important center for a critical, critical purpose.

As he knows well, fossil energy provides 82 percent of our Nation's energy needs, and research into tapping these resources as efficiently and as cleanly as possible is vital to our energy security.

I look forward to continuing to work with him and our other colleagues who have interest in fossil energy research through conference to ensure this vital program has adequate resources.

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I appreciate his persistence in trying to find an offset.

I, of course, share the gentleman's support for smart investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure. In fact, as I've said on a number of occasions, the Corps of Engineers was really one of our primary priorities in putting our bill together. The total program level is $50 million above the budget request and almost $150 million above the post-sequester level.

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account specifically is at the President's request. These funds will go primarily to training and response activities. If repairs to projects are necessary due to storms, the Corps has previously-appropriated, unobligated Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies funds which could be used for these purposes.

On the other hand, the bill has already reduced funding for fossil energy by $84 million, which is a 16 percent reduction, and I believe we took another substantial reduction earlier this evening. Research conducted within this program ensures that we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. We simply can't take another reduction to this account.

For this reason and several others, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

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

The rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment proposes to state a legislative position.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

I thank my colleague for his interest and strong advocacy on behalf of the Jefferson Lab and for the nuclear physics program. Our allocation has made for some tough choices, and we worked hard to fund the Office of Science at $32 million above current levels, post-sequester. This level of funding is sufficient to support a $7.5 million increase for the Medium Energy Nuclear Physics program, which goes to the Jefferson Lab.

I want to thank my colleague for his advocacy and look forward to working with him to support this vital program through the appropriations process.

I also assure my colleague that the bill keeps CEBAF on track to begin operations in fiscal year 2014.

I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.

Our colleague from California describes yet another troubling example of what seems to be Federal overreach, regulatory overreach. I support his amendment, which I think addresses the situation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I don't have any objection to the amendment, although I do have a few concerns, which I'd like to cover.

First of all, I want to thank my colleague for bringing these issues to our attention. If, in fact, the Corps' actions are detrimental to flood control efforts in his region, those types of actions need to be stopped, and I would be happy to work with him to do that.

I do believe, of course, that some of these issues would be better dealt with by the authorizing committees that have jurisdiction over the Corps and the Endangered Species Act. So I think there are some concerns that we have that are legitimate here. We're going to do some more investigation and work with the gentleman to see if we can address his concerns.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states:

It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a

general appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget

authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another

amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater

decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of

rule XXI.

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that this amendment has costs associated with it. The Corps' current pricing policy is based upon ``updated cost of storage'' which reflects today's value (indexed to current price levels) rather than at the original construction cost price level. So reverting to construction cost levels will unavoidably have a cost, with the net effect of increasing the level of budget authority in the bill.

Under section 3(d)(3), an increase in budget authority must be accompanied by an equal or greater decrease. This

amendment does not contain an equal or greater decrease, and so violates section 3(d)(3).

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

The House has worked its will over the past 2 days, and dozens of amendments have been considered in a very open and amicable process. This bill strengthens national security, fosters a stronger economy, and maintains important infrastructure that keeps American open for business and promotes job opportunities.

And we do all of this while making some tough, but smart, funding decisions, saving taxpayers $2.9 billion over last year's enacted level. We have just 2\1/2\ months left before the end of the year. This is the time to act. Now is the time to pass our government funding bills. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to speak on a serious issue that affects my constituents. I've been investigating it since it was brought to my attention several months ago through our local media.

The Department of Energy is in the process of moving dangerous radioactive waste thousands of miles across the country from east Tennessee to southern Nevada. This waste is destined for the Nevada Nuclear Security Site, formally known as the Nevada Test Site. This is a totally separate issue now from the proposed Yucca Mountain storage site debate that we have heard earlier today.

If you're unaware that this radioactive waste is traveling through your backyard, I'm not surprised. The DOE has failed to properly inform Congress about this activity.

The project involves the transport of hundreds of canisters containing high-concentration fissile materials from the Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to be dumped in my State of Nevada. The materials are so radioactive that they have a half life of more than 160,000 years.

I want to be clear that this is not the kind of low-level waste that the Nevada Test Site has been accepting for years. In fact, just weeks ago, I learned that the Department of Energy had reworked the waste acceptance criteria for the security site to allow storage of materials that have radioactive concentrations more than 40 times higher than anything that has ever been brought to the site for disposal before.

That revision to the WAC, or waste acceptance criteria, was signed off on by the DOE the very same day that agency officials met with my staff and State and local officials, yet DOE didn't think it was necessary or important to inform any of us about this change. As a matter of fact, it took an Internet search days later to discover that DOE had actually reworked the playbook for the site without any public input.

Mr. Chairman, there are far too many questions about what DOE is doing and plans to do at the Nevada Test Site, questions that so far have gone unanswered.

Nevadans have had a lot of experience dealing with Federal officials throughout the days of atomic testing and during the Cold War. We're not going to just turn aside now and let the DOE run roughshod over our communities.

And I can tell you that I'm not alone in expressing my concerns about the DOE's activities. Our Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, has also publicly stated his opposition to the shipments of this radioactive waste. In a letter to the Energy Secretary, our Governor stated that classifying ``this material as low-level waste sets a dangerous precedent.'' I will be submitting the letter from Governor Sandoval for the Record.

Mr. Chairman, my district sits just 65 miles southeast of the Nevada Test Site. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is home to nearly 2 million residents and more than 40 million visitors annually. Any plan to transport waste through the heart of the Las Vegas Valley would be extremely risky and incredibly irresponsible. The stakes are just too high to gamble on District One's safety.

The DOE has refused to cooperate with repeated attempts to gather additional information so we can have appropriate oversight. It's unthinkable that DOE is moving forward with this program without properly briefing Members of Congress. If we are being kept in the dark, who is overseeing the DOE's plans? It's critical that DOE be forthright about how and why the WAC was changed, how the changes relate to the proposed shipment, and how these changes will affect the safety and security of southern Nevada and communities across the country in the path of this transportation.

I'd like to thank the chairman and especially the ranking member for allowing me to bring this to the attention of the House, and I would ask them to work with me to ensure that there's proper congressional oversight of DOE and that the people of Nevada and beyond get the answers that they deserve.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Office of the Governor,

Las Vegas, NV, June 20, 2013.

Re Planned Shipment of Wastes from Oak Ridge to Nevada

National Security Site

Hon. Dr. Ernest Moniz,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Moniz: I'm writing to inform you that after

long and serious consideration, I have decided to oppose the

Department of Energy's plan to ship the Consolidated Edison

Uranium Solidification Project (CEUSP) canisters containing

dangerous and long-lived radioactive waste for disposal at

Area 5 of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS).

I am aware that DOE believes that these canisters qualify

for disposal as low-level radioactive waste (LLW). My

advisors have independently evaluated all of the important

technical and regulatory issues. They have concluded that the

CEUSP canisters are not commonplace LLW; even if these

canisters meet a legalistic definition of LLW, they are not

suitable for shallow land burial at the NNSS. Nevada is also

not satisfied with the overall process that DOE has followed

in developing its disposal and transportation plans,

including failure to appropriately address the concerns of

affected local governments and Native American Tribes.

The CEUSP canisters can only be considered LLW because they

do not meet the legal definition of high-level radioactive

waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, or uranium mill

tailings. Using this logic, DOE is attempting to exploit a

gap in current regulations. This dangerous waste should be

managed in the same manner as remote-handled transuranic

waste, which DOE currently ships to the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant for permanent deep-geologic disposal. The canisters

contain a high concentration of fissile material (Uranium 235

and Uranium 233), uranium isotopes that are extremely long-

lived (half lives of more than 160,000 years), and have a

relatively high surface dose rate (300 rem per hour), which

makes them dangerous to workers and a potential source of

``dirty bomb'' material. Moreover, qualifying this material

as LLW sets a dangerous precedent for the classification of

potential future waste streams that exist across the nation.

Both Nevada and DOE have a mutual interest in the long-term

and safe management of NNSS. Over the past two decades, the

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has worked

successfully with DOE on a broad range of environmental

assessment and remediation activities at NNSS. I believe that

this provides a basis for shared planning for future uses of

DOE facilities at NNSS.

I request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience

to discuss in a cooperative manner Nevada's views on the

future of operations at the NNSS. Timely matters for

discussion include the recently completed Site-wide

Environmental Impact Statement and pending issuance of the

associated Record of Decision, troubling revisions to the

NNSS Waste Acceptance Criteria, and the unsatisfactory manner

in which DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration

have dealt with affected local governments and Native

American Tribes in Nevada.

The State of Nevada is committed to a long-term cooperative

relationship with your Department, based on mutual respect,

sound science, protection of the environment, and public

health and safety. I look forward to meeting with you at your

earliest convenience.

Sincere regards,

Brian Sandoval,

Governor.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Missouri and Mississippi River basins have faced major challenges over the past few years due to both extreme flooding and droughts. This devastation, combined with the sluggish economy and our aging inland waterways infrastructure, means that now more than ever we must be focused and responsible with taxpayer-funded river projects.

My amendment would prohibit funding for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, also known as MRAPS. This $25 million earmarked study comes on the heels of a comprehensive $35 million, 17-year study that showed that the current authorized purposes are important and should be maintained.

This Congress and this administration need to focus on protecting human life and property by maintaining the safety and soundness of our levees. We also must support the important commercial advantages provided to us for our inland waterway system.

The Missouri River moves goods to the market and is an important tool in both domestic and international trade. That's why American Waterways Operators, the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Corn Growers Group support this amendment.

This study puts in jeopardy not only the lower Missouri River but also the flow of the Mississippi River, which could create devastating consequences for navigation and transportation, resulting in barriers for waterway operators, agriculture, and every product that depends on the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers to get it to market.

The current authorized uses of the Missouri River provide necessary recourses and translate into continued economic stability not only for Missourians, but also for many Americans living throughout the Missouri and lower Mississippi River basins. This study is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayers' dollars. On this exact issue we've already spent 17 years and $35 million on hundreds of public meetings and expensive litigation.

I offered identical language during our first debate on the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. That amendment passed by a vote of 245-176. In the fiscal year debates of 2012 and 2013, the exact amendment respectively passed by voice vote and by a vote of 242-168, and was later signed into law by President Obama. I appreciate my colleagues who offered their support and hope to have their support again.

Madam Chair, there's no doubt in my mind that water resources receive too little funding. It is time for the Federal Government to refocus and reprioritize to create safer, more efficient infrastructure for our inland waterways and stop spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars unnecessarily.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the dais.

Madam Chair, from extreme flooding to extreme drought, the United States has been hit very hard over the past few years. The families who live and work along the Missouri River have endured great hardship.

Though it's one of our Nation's greatest resources, the Missouri River would produce extreme, erosive regular flooding and be mostly unfit for navigation if not for aggressive, long-term management by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Congress first authorized the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) in 1912 with the intention of mitigating flood risk and maintaining a navigable channel from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth of the river in St. Louis. Though the BSNP's construction was completed in the 1980s, the Corps' ability to make adjustments as needed remains crucial to this day.

President Obama, in his fiscal year budget of 2014, requested $72 million for the Missouri River Recovery Program, which would primarily go towards the funding of environmental restoration studies and projects. This funding dwarfs the insufficient $8.4 million that was requested for the entire operations and maintenance of the aforementioned BSNP. It is preposterous to think that environmental projects are more important than the protection of human life.

I do not take for granted the importance of river ecosystems. I grew up near the Missouri River, as did many of my constituents. Yet we have reached a point in our Nation where we value the welfare of fish and birds more than the welfare of our fellow human beings. Our priorities are backwards, Madam Chair.

My amendment will eliminate the Missouri River Ecosystem Recovery Program, MRERP, a study that has become little more than a tool by some for the promotion of returning the river to its most natural state with little regard for flood control, navigation, trade, power generation, or the people who depend on the Missouri River for their livelihoods.

The end of the study will in no way jeopardize the Corps' ability to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. MRERP is one of no fewer than 70 environmental and ecological studies focused on the Missouri River. The people who have had to foot the bill for these studies--many of which take years to complete and are ultimately inconclusive--are the very people who have lost their farms, their businesses, and their homes.

Our vote today will also show our constituents that this Congress is aware of the gross disparity between the funding for environmental efforts and the funding for the protection of our citizens. During the debate on fiscal year 2012 and 2013 appropriations, the House passed this exact language, which was ultimately signed into law by President Obama. It is supported by the American Waterways Operators, the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Corn Growers Association.

It is time for Congress to take a serious look at water development funding priorities, and it is time to send a message to the Federal entities that manage our waterways. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support our Nation's river communities and encourage more balance in Federal funding for water infrastructure and management.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, last year, the House adopted my bipartisan amendment that would prevent agencies under the FY 2013 CJS appropriations bill from imposing ocean zoning related to the Obama administration's National Ocean Policy under Executive Order 13547. Executive Order 13547 was signed in 2010 and requires that various bureaucracies essentially zone the ocean and the sources thereof. This essentially means that a drop of rain that falls on your house could be subject to this overreaching policy because that precipitation will ultimately wind up in the ocean.

The Department of Energy is a part of the National Ocean Council established under this executive order that has been tasked to zone the oceans. Concerns have been raised by many groups that the National Ocean Policy will restrict ocean and inland activities. It is also worrisome that the administration has not made any requests for funds for this effort, nor has Congress ever appropriated money for this purpose. We have had hearings on this in the Natural Resources Committee, and no agency has told us from what source they're getting the funding for this initiative. So where is the money coming from? Are they raiding existing accounts and diverting already scarce dollars from existing statutory responsibilities?

On this chart you can see the executive order creates a huge new bureaucracy at a time when we're trying to make the government smaller, more efficient, more accountable, and less intrusive. The next chart lists the 63 agencies that are involved in this effort to try to zone the oceans. This looks like much more than a planning exercise at this point.

Let me say you're going to hear from the other side from time to time something that says that planning is good. Yes, planning may be good. Planning with the intent to in effect backdoor nonstatutory rulemaking is not good.

And here's what the executive order states on its face. It says:

All executive departments, agencies, and offices that are

members of the council and any other executive department,

agency, or office whose actions affect the ocean, our coasts,

and the Great Lakes shall, to the full extent consistent with

applicable law, comply with Council-certified coastal and

marine spatial plans.

That sounds like rulemaking, to me, that has not been authorized by statute.

It's important to note that ocean zoning was debated during the 108th, the 109th, the 110th, and the 111th Congresses, and each of those Congresses determined that this action was not necessary. This clearly indicates that Congress explicitly does not intend for the oceans to be zoned in the manner that the President is attempting to do. Thus, Executive Order 13547 has no specific statutory authority, and there have been no appropriations by Congress to pay for the cost of this new bureaucracy.

My similar amendment earlier this year passed by a bipartisan vote of 233-190 to the offshore energy packaged we considered last month. This amendment was also adopted on a bipartisan basis as a part of the FY 2013 CJS appropriations bill.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment which addresses another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prohibits Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of fuels unless their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. My simple amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on all Federal agencies funded by the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.

The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet fuel. This restriction was based on the opinion of some environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might produce more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. However, one of the unintended consequences of section 526 is that it essentially forces the American military to acquire fuel refined from unstable Middle East crude resources. Furthermore, section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all Federal agencies, not just the Defense Department.

This is why I'm offering this amendment again today to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. The American military and our Federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel restrictions when there's a simple fix. That fix is to not restrict Federal Government fuel choices based on unsound policies and misguided regulations like those in section 526.

Section 526 also essentially makes our Nation more dependent on Middle East oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 will help us to promote American energy, grow the American economy, create American jobs, and become more energy secure.

Madam Chair, it is also important to know what this amendment does not prevent and does not restrict. And it doesn't restrict or prevent the ability of the Federal Government from purchasing any alternative fuels, including biodiesel, ethanol, or other fuels from renewable resources. It places no restrictions whatsoever on those types of procurements.

I offered this amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bills and several appropriations bills during the 112th Congress, and they all passed on the floor of the House with strong bipartisan support. My friend, Mr. Conaway, also added similar language to the latest defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this burdensome regulation.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.