Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 641 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel An America That Works Act of 2014. It makes 10 amendments in order--four Republican and six Democrat--and the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2015, under a modified open rule and provides for other technical and clerical purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is a bipartisan measure that provides for the essential funding of several Federal agencies during the next fiscal year, including the Department of Energy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation.

This measure would also fund important Federal science research in the fields of energy, high-performance computing systems, and next- generation energy sources. It is appropriate that this measure providing for the Nation's energy needs also be included with this rule.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today and speak in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.

American families, Mr. Speaker, are hurting. Every time you pull up to the gas pump, you have to wonder whether there will ever be any relief to the family budget for these ever-increasing gasoline prices.

It means simply--whether you support or like the guy or not--that before President Obama took office in 2009, the average national price for a gallon of unleaded regular gas was under $2 a gallon. Today, it has nearly doubled to around $4 a gallon. And the prices keep rising almost every day.

This administration touts its growth in energy production, not recognizing that that production increase has all come on private and State-owned property. If we are to have sustained growth of our economy, if we are not having peaks and valleys, if we are not having boom and bust, it is important that the resources that we have in great abundance that are on Federal lands also be included so there can be a sustained growth to our economy.

Unfortunately, since President Obama took office, total Federal oil production has dropped 6 percent, total Federal national gas production has dropped an astounding 28 percent, and, at the same time, offshore oil production is down 15 percent and offshore gas production is down 47 percent.

Unfortunately, 87 percent of all the area that is allowed offshore of acreage of potential development is currently off limits to oil and natural gas production.

We have policies that are really harming our progress forward, and they need to be changed. This act that will be put before us, if we pass this rule, does indeed do that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman has only from me yet to hear.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am an old history teacher, and one of the things I have always claimed for my students is you should actually try to look to the past, to see how you can plan for the future.

When Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, this country was faced with the crisis of double-digit inflation, double- digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates; and as President, after so many years of a Congress that tried to have the policy of spending ourselves into economic growth that failed, his issue was: Which of those do you attack first?

I think it is interesting to realize--to grab hold of each of those issues, his first action was to increase the supply of affordable energy. That became the basis of growing an economy in which he could then attack each of those problems of unemployment and inflation and interest rates which were plaguing this country.

We have to realize now that a strong foundation of affordable energy is extremely significant, from whatever source, but especially from what will be workable now.

High gasoline prices--and the price that is increasing in every form of energy we have today--hurts the middle class, and it especially hurts the working poor, many of whom have to decide, every time they go to the pump, whether they are going to put food on the table or fill up the minivan.

We have to deal with something. Now, in my area of the west where we live and the part of the country where the distances between communities are extremely large, as opposed to back here in the east, where everything is so lumped closely together, the increase in fuel costs hits home with a real inflicting pain.

I am sorry. The policies of the past that we had that made the desert bloom are being reversed by the policies of the present. Whether you are at the pump realizing the pain that is inflicted or whether your concern is what kind of energy cost it will take when you go into the room and flip on the light or you decide to cook food, we have to realize these are real problems facing middle America, as well as the working poor of America.

We can either come up with policies that move us forward, or we can implement policies that allow us to freeze in the dark, and so far, we have done a good job on the latter and not the first.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have passed several bills over the past few years--and this year as well--aimed at increasing U.S. domestic fuel production, only to have those bills sidelined in the deliberative body on the other side of this building.

It reminds me of a great quote, when Thomas Brackett Reed, the old Speaker of the House, went over to the Senate to watch them in debate and came back and announced to the body:

Thank heavens we are not a deliberative body.

There are problems that we have that can be solved. We have those places, too, and I appreciate the fact the gentleman from Florida did mention that China and others are putting money into alternative energy programs.

They are also going around the world and gobbling up whatever kinds of oil and coal resources they can get their hands on, to support and sustain a growing economy over there, while our administration is taking the United States in the opposite direction by self-inflicted artificial limits, policies that have actually hurt our economy, killed high-paying jobs, and increased the cost of consumer goods for all, including the middle class.

There are reasons why, Mr. Speaker, in the last 6 years, our economy is simply limping along, and we should learn the lessons of the past to recognize what we can do from that. Our economic malaise can be attributed to a lack of attention to a commonsense energy program on Federal lands.

So what would this bill, H.R. 4899, actually do? It would establish and demand a new 5-year plan for the leases of those areas, with the concept of going after where the resources actually are. We can talk about all the lands that are leased, but it is totally unimportant if there are no resources there.

Have a plan that focuses on where the resources are. Produce a revenue-sharing plan with the coastal States. Come up with three distinct agencies which would replace the new structure that has been put upon since the oil spill and make them actually functioning. That is the problem.

I agree with some of the things you have said. We haven't done much in reform, but we have done a whole lot in regulatory reform on the administrative level, and I agree with you, that that hasn't worked as well.

To establish a policy that the NPR-A is for the purpose of providing oil as a resource to the United States and to establish some kind of Internet-based auctions for these programs--look, we are not talking about taking over everything and drilling everywhere.

This Federal Government owns somewhere around 400 to 450 million acres of land. Of that, 350, roughly, are already in a conservation status that can never be touched.

There are 50 million acres, at the most, that have development potential, and those are the areas in which policies of this administration are strangling the ability to move them forward.

I will--because I hadn't planned on it, so I don't have my wonderful charts here. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida talking about education because I want to finish off with that in just one second.

I appreciate his sentiment that, some day, my position can prevail, but unless we change the overall Federal position, I can't get that moving forward, and that is why it becomes extremely important.

We are not just talking about gas at the pump and the cost of electricity and the cost of cooking your food. There are also those tradeoff effects which specifically deal with education.

If one looks at a map of the States, there is overwhelming control by the Federal Government of ownership of the land, the public land States of the Midwest and the west coast, and you look at the States which have the hardest time increasing their funding for public education.

It is an amazing correlation between the two, which means that, over the past 20 years, those who do not live in public land States, those areas east of Denver, which average about 4 percent of their States being controlled by the Federal Government, have grown their educational funding by 68 percent.

Those of us who average over 50 percent of our land controlled by the Federal Government in these public lands States have grown our education budget by 35 percent.

It is simply a matter that my State cannot improve its education funding alone unless we are allowed to develop some of the resources we have in huge abundance but are tied up in the policies of the Federal Government.

So, yes, it is true. We are growing petroleum activities in this country. We are growing our exploration. We are growing what we are developing, what we are exporting. But it is all coming from private lands and State lands that are not part of the West. And if you want to keep that growth on a continuous basis and not have spikes, then you have to go after the resources that we have on the public lands.

And if you were allowed to do that, not only would we get royalties coming back in from those resources, but it would spin off all sorts of jobs that would then generate the income tax we need and the sales tax revenue and the royalties to replace the fact that we are not getting property tax from lands that are controlled by the Federal Government and were promised to us a long time ago when we became States.

This bill provides a plan on how to do this. This bill is something that is desperately needed if we are going to move forward. If enacted into law, it would encourage greater oil and gas development on Federal onshore and offshore lands with a plan of how you actually accomplish it and how you do it. And it may actually give my kids a chance at a fairer shot for an education, because they desperately need it, and the status quo is not providing it. And that has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I would only urge Members to support this rule. It is a fair rule. It is a good rule. And then I would hope, afterwards, they would support the underlying bills which provide for our Nation's critical energy needs and would help promote jobs at the same time, as well as funding for my schools in Utah.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 641 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1426) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow

the deduction for income attributable to domestic production

activities with respect to oil and gas activities of major

integrated oil companies. The first reading of the bill shall

be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration

of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 1426.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman, my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I join my good friends on the Energy and Water Committee, Representatives Lowey and Kaptur, in applauding the chairman's concerted effort to compose H.R. 4923 in an inclusive manner.

I appreciate the bipartisan nature of the bill and am supportive of many of the provisions contained within it. However, I am not without my concerns. All of these phrases that my friends on the other side of the aisle bandy about--``increase over this,'' ``funding above last year's levels''--sound great, but as always, we need to see what is lurking in the shadows.

For example, H.R. 4923 is completely uninspired when it comes to renewable energy. Its approach, in my view, is a myopic one--one that, if we follow it too far, leaves us trying to play catch-up with our competitors, like the Chinese and many other countries, that have turned their attention to renewable energy. As China continues its now decade-long trend of increasing investment in its renewable energy sector--a footnote here: it invested $56 billion just last year--we take the truly uninspired step of cutting funding for renewable energy by 6.4 percent.

I am aware of the studies that conclude that our Nation will be able to meet 97 percent of its energy needs through domestic production by 2035, and I consider that to be great. This Nation has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign oil since 2003. This is a serious national security vulnerability, and I think we can all agree that lessening this dependence is a desirable goal.

I also know that, for many in this day of Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, 2035 seems like a long way off. Those of us in this Chamber do not have the luxury of thinking that way. We have a responsibility to look past 2035, and we have a responsibility to leave our children and grandchildren with an energy portfolio that will keep them in good stead for the years after 2035. We abdicate this responsibility when we underfund research and development in the renewable energy sector. We abdicate this responsibility when we skew applied energy programs at the Department of Energy too heavily toward nuclear energy and fossil fuels. An increased investment in renewable energy makes good economic sense; it makes good environmental sense; and it makes good national security sense. The time to make this investment is now.

We need to be careful even where we see funding increases. Though these funding increases may seem impressive and prudent, we need to be reminded that all that glitters is not gold. They merely mask a continuation of the status quo for my friends from across the

aisle. They would have you believe they are increasing funding for environmental protection while reducing spending on defense, but alas, in my view, this is an illusion. In reality, this bill represents business as usual for the Republican Party--slashing funding for research in renewable resources while doling out more handouts to dirty energy and environmental polluters. It seems like every other week we are voting to drill off our shores, in our parks, or on Federal lands.

To that end, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014--we are the greatest naming people in the world here in Congress--is just a greatest hits record, rehashing two measures the House has already voted on, one of which itself was already cobbled together from a number of separate bills. Like all greatest hits albums, it, too, is stuck in the past. Those past attempts rightly died in the Senate, and there is no reason to expect a different result this time around. Yet here we are again, tossing legislation into the void while our country's very real problems fester.

My friends across the aisle have no ideas, evidently, for energy independence and security beyond more drilling. They would rather score political points than propose real solutions. I am sure they will go home to their districts next week for one of the biggest driving weekends of the year. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I commented that the oil industry manipulates us. Every year in the summer, prices go up on gasoline, and I just don't think that is coincidental when gas prices historically tend to be high. Yet they are going to point to these votes as evidence that they tried to lower gasoline prices. While it may make for a good feel-good story, that is all it is. Putting more oil out there won't move prices. Domestic production is already at a 25-year high in this country, up 60 percent since 2008. Imports are at 29-year lows.

Despite my friend's claims, onshore oil production from Federal lands has gone up 30 percent since 2008. I can never pass up an opportunity to say that I will continue to resist offshore drilling off the coast of Florida beyond the accommodations that have already been made by this body. Yet gas prices remain unchanged. The U.S. holds only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. Even tripling current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we would continue at the rate we are going; or if we would increase oil production all the way to 50 percent--which is more than drilling in the Arctic, increasing public lands and offshore drilling, and the pipelines would provide--prices would decrease by only 10 percent at most.

Oil is priced on the global market, which is far more complicated than my friends let on. Record demand for fossil fuels in this country and in places like India and China and Singapore and Japan have far more impact on the price of gasoline than anything my friends here hope to do. The liquid natural gas export bill the House passed yesterday shows they understand the nature of the market. They just choose to ignore it whenever it is convenient.

My friends across the aisle have no plans for addressing the demand for the kinds of policies that actually could help reduce energy costs, like increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of our cars, and developing renewable energy resources. I was visited by one of our college presidents, John Kelly, who is new at Florida Atlantic University. He visited with me today, and that university has a new grant dealing with currents, which may very well at some point add to our understanding with reference to renewable energy resources. So it won't be the American people who benefit from more drilling. It will be the bottom lines of the companies that own the wells. Hardworking Americans will be left to bear the risk.

This ``drill everywhere, all the time'' plan isn't a serious energy strategy; it is a cash grab by the fossil fuel industry. It is not a path to energy independence and security; it is a road to environmental and economic collapse. This isn't a game. The threat is real, Mr. Speaker. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Let me repeat that. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. A footnote here: BP has not paid for all of the damage that they did in that area, and I defy anybody to show me how it is that they did. I ask anybody who is getting ready to eat seafood that comes out of that bay to look at the damage that was done and at the continuing sediment that continues to rise from that area that was polluted.

What happens to all of those Floridians whose livelihoods depend upon our oceans and beaches?

If you want to know, ask the oyster people what happens. Ask the shrimpers who go out into the gulf what their product looks like nowadays, including the deformed product that they are seeing from this awful disaster.

Florida's GDP from its living resources, which includes fishing, hatcheries, aquaculture, seafood processing, and seafood markets, is worth nearly $300 million. Additionally, the State's GDP from ocean- based tourism and recreation is nearly $16.5 billion. On top of that, Florida generates millions of dollars in commercial fishing, including shrimp, mackerel, blue crab, swordfish, and stone crabs, which we are finding are diminishing in numbers. We have 350,000 jobs in tourism and recreation and nearly 120,000 direct jobs in recreational and commercial fishing.

But you can't eat contaminated fish, and who wants to spend one's hard-earned dollars and vacation time lounging on a beach that is covered in tar balls?

When I lifted up on Monday in the US Air plane and looked down at the shore of Florida, I saw what amounts to about a mile-long oil slick. I saw people walking, and I knew that, in a matter of time, they would be walking on tar balls.

How bad does the next spill have to be?

Climate change is not even pending anymore. It is here, and its effects are conspicuous. Downtown Miami, for example, floods whenever it rains, and so does Hollywood, Florida, and areas that I live around. People can't get to work, businesses can't open, and historic droughts have now ravaged the West, and my friends say that there is nothing to concern ourselves about as it pertains to climate change.

The Risky Business report just released by President George W. Bush's former Treasury Secretary--Henry Paulson--and Mayor Bloomberg and Tom Steyer and other former Cabinet officers, lawmakers, corporate leaders, and scientists says climate change could cost the country billions of dollars over the next two decades.

This bill fully ignores the reality of the world we live in, but I do want to say one thing.

In yesterday's Rules Committee, my friend who is managing this rule, Mr. Bishop from Utah, did make to me a compelling argument regarding education in the State of Utah and the fact that, on some of the Federal lands in Utah, if they had an opportunity to do further oil exploration, it could have an impact on Utah's economy. I think that, in many respects, a lot of that is reasonable. I am hopeful that at some point some of his views in that regard will prevail, but I hope, for the most part, that his overall views do not prevail.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my good friend.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2013, Representative Tim Bishop's bill, to end the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies given to the largest, most profitable oil companies each year.

To discuss our proposal, I am pleased, at this time, to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise at this time and ask if you would learn from my colleague if he is ready to close. I have no further speakers, and I am prepared at this time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that these bills just leave us spinning our wheels, while we could be making actual progress in helping hardworking Americans all across this Nation.

It is outrageous that 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I might add that we learned yesterday that 300,000 of that 3 million are American veterans.

We have also had, along with the expiration of tax extender provisions that help individuals that have expired, they help families and small businesses invest.

Republicans and Democrats should be working together to move our Nation forward on comprehensive immigration reform, and I might add that I agree with everybody that says that the border needs to be secure, and one good way to do that is to do comprehensive immigration reform and tax reform.

We need to raise the minimum wage in this country, and we need to protect voting rights and secure equal pay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, before I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' I just want to make it very clear that the measures that we are considering today have already been voted on by the House and did not go further to become law. The likelihood of this measure reaching that same fate is very strong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's passion for coastal restoration. I know it is a high priority for his district, his State, and, in fact, for the country.

The committee often hears complaints that projects take too long and cost too much to build, in large part attributed to inefficient funding. If that is true, then the only responsible way to allow for new starts is to finish understanding the impacts of the selected new starts on the Corps' future budget requirements and on the expected costs and timelines of ongoing projects. Unfortunately, we do not have that information, and the administration has shown no willingness to provide it.

The fiscal year 2014 act allowed for a limited number of new construction starts, with the requirement that the administration provide information to show that these projects would be affordable at reasonable construction account levels and that these new projects would not unduly delay or increase the cost of ongoing projects.

To say that the so-called analysis from the administration was inadequate would be an understatement. And no information at all was provided for the new start proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget request.

Additionally, the administration continues to propose budgets with significant cuts to the construction account, including a 32 percent cut for fiscal year 2015. In fact, several individual projects authorized in the recent WRRDA are each estimated to cost more than what the administration requested for the entire nationwide construction program. Clearly, as promising as some new projects may be, it would be fiscally irresponsible to initiate new projects with no information on the impact of doing so.

I understand that some Members with authorized projects in their districts are anxious to get construction underway. I also understand, however, that many Members with projects already under construction in their districts want to see those projects completed and to start realizing the benefits of these Federal, State, and local investments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

First, though, let me assure my colleague that I am sympathetic to the need for increased construction funding. In fact, the underlying bill increases construction funding by almost $50 million above fiscal year 2014 and by almost $600 million, or 52 percent above the budget request.

While I understand there is always more that can be done, we could shift the entire expenses account to construction, and there still would be more that needs to be done.

Although it may seem like an easy offset here on the floor, Members should recognize that a $50 million cut to the expenses account cannot be sustained in conference. Funding for the expenses account in the underlying bill already reflects a 2 percent reduction from fiscal year 2014 and a 4 percent reduction from fiscal year 2012.

For those reasons, I must oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

I certainly understand the gentleman's concern, and I agree with him. It all comes down to funding levels.

But I would be more than willing to work with the gentleman to try to see if we could address his concern, which is a concern for all of us, as we move forward into the conference process.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Let me assure my colleague, though, that I agree with him about the importance of making investments in navigation and flood control infrastructure.

In fact, a lot of the problem was trying to find an offset for $47 million, and as the gentleman knows, it is very difficult because there are things in this bill that are very important to at least someone within this body.

Because of the importance of navigation and flood control, that is why the underlying bill increases funding for MR&T by 6 percent above the President's budget request and focuses funding, such that navigation is increased by 21 percent and flood control by 15 percent above the budget request.

While I understand that there is almost always more that can be done, we must balance several competing activities within the Energy and Water bill. The amendment would reduce the EERE account, which is already cut by $113 million below last year's level and $528 million below the President's budget request.

So while we did increase funding for the MR&T account above the President's request, the EERE account is already $528 million below the budget's request by the administration. Within the EERE account, the funding the bill preserves is just as important as the funding it cuts.

The bill focuses funding for three main priorities: helping American manufacturers remain competitive, supporting weatherization assistance programs, and addressing future high gas prices.

This funding supports breakthrough research to reduce what Americans pay at the gas pump and to help our companies compete in the global market, which creates jobs here at home.

For these reasons, while I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do with the amendment and tried to help on crafting an amendment that we can find $47 million for, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition, although I am hopeful that my colleague will withdraw the amendment.

First, let me assure the gentleman that I am sympathetic to the issues that he has highlighted in his statement.

Adequate water supply, whether it is for agricultural irrigation or municipal or industrial use, is a basic necessity for economic prosperity. In the committee's view, however, navigation and flood control are top priorities for the Corps of Engineers, and the bill before us prioritizes funding accordingly.

My colleague from Arkansas has proven to be a strong advocate for his constituents and for the projects that seek to further develop the agricultural irrigation infrastructure important to his constituents.

If the gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment, I will agree to work with him, moving forward, to try to address these needs, if additional funding beyond that necessary for navigation and flood control becomes available.

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but let me assure my colleagues that I agree with her about the importance of sufficient maintenance of our Nation's water resources infrastructure, including our waterways. It seems like the amendments that Members are offering, I agree with them; however, there are challenges that they face.

I also agree that since the harbor maintenance tax is collected for a specific purpose and since the need for dredging is apparent, we should be using these funds for their intended purpose to the greatest extent possible rather than allowing a balance to accumulate in the trust fund. That is an issue we have been dealing with for the last several years, trying to figure out how we can do that without harming all of the other programs within the budget. Unfortunately, that is what they do. Until we change our budget rules or something, and I don't have the answer to it yet, but we have been trying to work with the Budget Committee and with the Appropriations Committee to try to make sure that those taxes collected for the harbor maintenance trust fund are used for what they are intended to do. And if the account is just growing, then we shouldn't be collecting the tax.

I know that is what it sounds like. In fact, the bill continues to increase funding for harbor maintenance trust fund activities above the previous year and above the budget request, as the committee has repeatedly done over the past few years. The bill includes more than $1.1 billion for these activities, which equates to more than a 20 percent increase over the amount requested by the administration for fiscal year 2015. While I understand that there is almost always more work that can be done, we must balance several competing activities within the Energy and Water bill.

The amendment would reduce the nuclear energy account by $12.8 million, which would bring the account below the fiscal year 2014 level. The underlying bill provides a total of $899 million for nuclear energy programs, only $10 million above last year. That is what seems strange about this, doing what we all think is the right thing to do using the harbor maintenance trust fund to do harbor maintenance. By increasing that, we hurt nuclear energy, which I don't think is the intent of the gentlelady or the gentleman from Louisiana who want to do this.

In addition to protecting the Department of Energy's nuclear energy materials, this funding protects a range of national security programs at the NNSA, Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies. Furthermore, I oppose the reduced funding for nuclear energy research and development, which is a critical part of this bill's support for a balanced energy portfolio. Nuclear power currently generates 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, and it will continue to play a large role in the future.

As I said, I am sympathetic to what the gentlelady is trying to do. In fact, I was cosponsor at one time of a bill by my friend from Louisiana that said you have to use the harbor maintenance trust fund and use it to dredge the harbors. If there is a need out there, we ought to be using that to do it.

We need to work together to try to solve this problem. And believe me, it would help us a lot in crafting this bill if somehow we could do that. Otherwise, we shouldn't be collecting the tax if we have a need and the account is growing. But it is because of our budget rules and so forth that it creates this problem. I understand what the gentlelady is doing. Unfortunately, her amendment would hurt the nuclear account and other accounts within the bill which has been the problem in the past.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would assure the gentleman that we share his concerns, and in fact, if you look at the underlying bill, we have reduced funding for the ASA's office by 60 percent, or $3 million, because of the same concerns we have that you are expressing and that Mr. Gosar expressed before you. It is a concern that all of us have. We will work with you to make sure that we address this.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I thank Chairman Simpson for his leadership.

This energy, water, and nuclear security bill is liberty's business. It is about national nuclear security, about energy security, about jobs and economic growth here at home through upgrading our ports, preventing flooding, assuring fresh water from coast to coast, and inventing the new energy technologies required to reposition America for energy security in our homeland for a new century. Bottom line: our bill is about the business of ensuring liberty for our country.

The United States entered this 21st century with a net reliance on foreign oil. Renewed conflicts in Iraq, Ukraine's Crimea, and Syria once again warn us that U.S. energy dependence on imported product remains our chief strategic vulnerability. Throughout the last century, American reliance on foreign oil grew dangerously. Our share of imports in the Nation's total energy supply rose from 42 percent in 1990 to more than 50 percent by 1998 and, frankly, keeps bobbing between 40 and 50 percent now. It consumes over half of the trade deficit we hold with the world. This energy dependence seriously weakens America.

As Michael Klare states in his book, ``Blood and Oil'':

Every economic recession since World War II has come on the

heels of a petroleum shortage.

I would add, the millions of lost jobs associated with those recessions has harmed America gravely.

Just since 2003, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion-- trillion--importing foreign petroleum. At a price per barrel of $100, the total bill for America importing oil over the next 25 years could cost us over $10 trillion. That is $10 trillion of hemorrhage of U.S. wealth, millions of lost jobs, and the economic muscle that goes with it.

If you want to understand why our middle class is shrinking and more people are falling into poverty, just look at the energy trade deficit this country endures and has endured for a quarter century. Those numbers clearly demonstrate the lost energy opportunity inside our own Nation. We are ceding wealth, jobs, economic power, and our national security. If you really want to understand why America has developed a horrendous budget deficit, you had best take a look at the energy trade deficit as a major cause of our condition as we have ceded our wealth elsewhere. In fact, the entirety of our committee bill at $34 billion cannot begin to compensate for the over $200 billion in imported foreign oil that will pour into our country this year alone--eight times more than the value of our bill.

Recent natural gas discoveries and added domestic oil drilling provide our Nation with some breathing room, but only for a while, as these supplies are not endless--they are precious--to help us as we transition to a broad, diversified energy portfolio that captures the energy wealth here for our Nation.

Congress must lead our Nation to restore energy security and greater prosperity for our Nation through the innovation that this bill incentivizes. The horizontal drilling technologies that are creating a boom in domestic natural gas discoveries were made possible by research done through our bill at the Department of Energy.

America must invest in our own energy future across all energy sectors. We must restore some of our lost economic luster. Alternatively, if we cede our future to China, Russia, and Singapore, we will have missed the call of our generation.

A focus on high-impact energy research at the Department through renewable technologies, advanced energy, and applied energy are critical, as well as funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Office to lead us to a new era of energy and job creation.

Further, the increased allocation for the Corps of Engineers is vital to restore our infrastructure, supporting thousands of jobs in economic growth as we upgrade our fresh water systems while our Nation adapts to climate change and more parched places as deserts grow in places we thought were easily habitable.

Though our bill provides $5.492 billion to support the Corps, keep in mind there are no new starts in it, and there are over $60 billion worth of project requests that are backlogged that we simply can't address. Imagine what potential job creation could be induced coast to coast by meeting this massive Corps backlog.

The bill before us today takes a modest step forward in diversifying America's energy sources. Frankly, based on the challenge facing our Nation for almost a third of a century now, this bill's bottom line should be tripled to get us faster to a solution for liberty and security. We know with energy conservation and additional innovation we can meet our goal, but our imperative must be sooner rather than later. Our generation should make it easier for the next generation, not hand the problem to them.

I do have concerns with amounts provided to certain accounts within the nonproliferation activities of the National Security Agency and the Defense Environmental Cleanup account, where, despite the chairman's best efforts, the subcommittee's allocation was simply insufficient to address the many competing needs.

I yield myself an additional 10 seconds.

I look forward to the debate and working with Chairman Simpson, a gracious chairman, to complete the task before us to strengthen liberty as she encounters the challenges of a new era.

I want to thank Rob Blair and Taunja Berquam, our able staff, for moving us to this point.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of our full committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), a member of the Agriculture, Budget, and Oversight Committees.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue. I agree we should set our public transparency standards high when looking at taxpayer-funded projects. A portion of the risk-based data management activity is intended to be used for improving FracFocus, and as we move forward I will work with the gentleman to ensure that our intent is included in the conference report language.

Madam Chair, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to inquire if the gentleman is ready to close.

I am prepared to close, Mr. Chairman, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, an energy-hungry world will continue to push up global energy prices and availability. America must not get caught in this ensuing juggernaut. Our liberty and economic security truly are at stake. The world is changing and so America must adapt, and adapt sooner rather than later.

Over a quarter century ago, President Jimmy Carter was not wrong when he equated the struggle for energy independence as the moral equivalent of war. America, since, has been engaged in plenty of fighting abroad in oil-rich, unstable regions of our world. Instead, we must refocus and draw forth the powers of our own land, performing something worthy to be remembered, as Daniel Webster reminds us every day. Energy security is such a calling.

Certainly, this bill leaves unmet opportunities on the table--too much, in my view--but its direction is clear. It aims at liberty. It looks forward to meeting that objective by moving this bill forward.

I want to thank Chairman Simpson, Rob Blair, Taunja Berquam, and our entire staff for their willingness to work together, for preparing a bill that is inclusive and pragmatic. I appreciate Chairman Simpson's gentlemanly reach out to our side of the aisle.

I also want to thank all the staff who helped. Their countless long hours, late nights during holidays and so forth, and their thoughtful insights have been critical to helping us prepare this legislation that is aimed at restoring liberty, creating jobs in America, reassuming economic power here at home, strengthening our energy portfolio and water security for future generations, and, fundamentally, our national security.

I ask our colleagues as we move through the amendment process to help us move this bill forward in America's interest.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I wanted to thank the gentleman from the Lake Okeechobee region of Florida (Mr. Murphy) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for the very effective manner in which they have handled themselves in bringing this to our attention. And I want to thank the chair for accepting this important amendment, which is so important to Florida.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4923, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chair, it is my distinct honor to present the fiscal year 2015 Energy and Water bill for consideration before the full House. I would like to recognize the efforts of our chairman, Mr. Rogers, and Ranking Member Lowey to bring this bill to the floor. Their efforts to bring the appropriations process back to regular order ensures that our Federal discretionary spending receives the full scrutiny of this body and our committee process.

I would also like to thank Ranking Member Kaptur for all of her work. Her contributions and advice have made this legislation stronger.

The bill before us totals $34.01 billion for activities for the Department of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies under our jurisdiction. This is a $50 million reduction from last year's funding levels.

The bill prioritizes investments in this Nation's infrastructure and national defense. As we do each year, we worked hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle.

For instance, this bill overcomes the budget request's proposed cut of nearly $1 billion to the critical programs of the Army Corps of Engineers. The request would have led to economic disruptions at our ports and waterways as our ports and waterways filled in and would have left our communities and businesses vulnerable to flooding. Instead, this bill recognizes the critical work of the Corps and provides $5.492 billion for these activities, $959 million above the request and $25 million above last year.

This bill takes a strong stand against government overreach by prohibiting changes to the definitions of the ``waters of the United States'' and ``fill material.''

The bill also provides $11.361 billion for the automatic security, nonproliferation, and naval reactors programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, a $154 million increase from fiscal year 2014.

This bill is clear about our concerns with Russia's recent activities in Eastern Europe. It eliminates all new funding for nonproliferation funding in Russia and requires that, before the Secretary of Energy funds any activity in Russia, he must certify that the activity is in our national security interests.

Madam Chairman, Russia's activities in Ukraine have shown once again how important our nuclear security umbrella is to our allies. We have also seen how Russia has used Ukraine's reliance on natural gas to put pressure on its new leadership. The movements by insurgents to occupy Iraq threaten to drive oil prices through the roof.

Our country has abundant natural energy resources, and it is our national security and economic interest to ensure that they are fully and responsibly used. That is why this bill makes a strong, balanced investment in our energy sector to ensure that our constituents continue to have reliable, affordable energy.

Fossil energy, which provided more than 71 percent of our electricity production in 2013, receives $593 million, a $31 million increase above fiscal year 2014. Nuclear energy is increased by $10 million above last year. Energy efficiency and renewable energy is slightly reduced by $113 million from last year. This balanced investment prioritizes improvements to energy sources that we rely upon today while making long-term investments in alternative energy sources.

I appreciate the full committee's attention to this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.004

Madam Chair, I now yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full committee.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for his continued advocacy of Hanford cleanup funding in the Energy and Water bill. His leadership on these issues will be sorely missed in the future.

I am pleased to support funding for the cleanup of the River Corridor, and I am hopeful that the Department of Energy will soon provide the necessary details for the Waste Treatment Plant project. WTP is a critical project, but Congress needs more answers and greater transparency.

I look forward to working with you to make sure adequate funding is available should a new agreement on the path forward be reached.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with you to making sure adequate funding is available to support the needs of our nuclear weapons stockpile and to receiving more information on the Department of Energy's proposal to construct this new capability.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Madam Chair, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

I thank the gentleman from Texas for highlighting the importance of allocating sufficient resources to the maintenance of our waterways and harbors.

It is for this very reason that he articulated that the bill being considered today increases funding for navigation maintenance by 18 percent above the budget request.

Madam Chair, I agree that Congress needs to hold the administration accountable in this regard, and I promise to work with the gentleman to ensure that we prioritize maintenance funding for all of our Nation's economically and strategically significant waterways and harbors.

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his continued advocacy for the important national security activities funded in the Energy and Water bill, which includes the Naval Reactors program.

Madam Chair, as the appropriations process continues, I look forward to working with him and his colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, to ensure that Naval Reactors receives the funding it requires to sustain, support, and to modernize the nuclear fleet.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to inquire how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and at this time, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his continued advocacy of the cleanup program at Los Alamos.

I look forward to working with you on ensuring that adequate funding is available to support the Department of Energy's cleanup program, including the cleanup work at Los Alamos and the restoration of operations at WIPP.

I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I believe we have two more speakers.

Madam Chair, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentlewoman that we have no more speakers, and if the gentlewoman is ready to close, I will close.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her work on this bill. She has been a valuable partner in crafting a bill.

In trying to address the needs of all Members on both sides of the aisle, obviously you can never address all of them, but I think both the Republican and Democratic members of the committee and of the House ought to be proud of the bill that is before them and our efforts to try to address their desires and their needs.

With that, I would encourage all Members to support this legislation. I look forward to the debate on the amendments that are going to be coming up.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment and thank the good lady for offering it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We will accept the amendment.