Healthy Relationships Act of 2017

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

Mr. Chair, in these difficult times, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member, Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur of the subcommittee, for shepherding this legislation to the floor, and for their efforts, and the commitment that we all have to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.

My amendment increases funding for the DOE departmental administration by $1 million, which should be used to enhance the Department's Environmental Justice program activities.

The Environmental Justice program is an essential tool in the effort to improve the lives of low-income and minority communities, as well as the environment at large. Twenty years ago, this particular program was established directing Federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.

So we have engaged with Historically Black Colleges, minority-serving institutions, Tribal colleges, and other organizations to improve and develop the sustainability through developing

young people and faculty to work on these important issues.

The crisis in Flint, Michigan, teaches us how important it is that minority groups and low-income communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environmental threats and hazards like lead in drinking water or nesting areas for mosquitos carrying the Zika virus. I particularly remember convening a Zika task force in Houston to ensure that areas in my community, because of the sitting water and a lot of heat, did not breed these mosquitos to create a devastating condition in some of our communities.

This Environmental Justice program is extremely important, involving community education and advisory projects, community capacity building through technology, the Community Leaders Institute, but, more importantly, it works on important research.

Mr. Chair, might I find out how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I want to make note of the fact that in some of the universities that participate in this program, the chairs-- meaning the faculty chairs--are a team of world-class scholars, researchers, and educators from 14 Historically Black Colleges and Universities, one Hispanic-serving institution, who advance research, enhance academics, promote partnerships, and effect outreach in the environmental sciences.

Finally, the Minority Serving Institutions Program that includes a wide array of institutions provides funding to minority-serving institutions to advance scientific research, student internships, faculty fellowships, and curriculum development.

Mr. Chair, the more we can invest in science and research, helping to improve our environment--and let me make it very clear, in urban and rural areas. This is not an urban program only. It is urban and rural areas. The more we can help our communities be clean and environmentally safe and secure, the more we create a better quality of life for all people, no matter what their economic station in life or where they live.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.

My amendment increases funding for DOE departmental administration by $1,000,000 which should be used to enhance the Department's Environmental Justice program activities.

Mr. Chair, the Environmental Justice Program is an essential tool in the effort to improve the lives of low income and minority communities as well as the environment at large.

Twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.

A healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community which fosters personal and economic growth.

Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting sustainability and growth of the community and environment.

The funding of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued preservation of their homes.

The crisis in Flint, Michigan teaches us how important it that minority groups and low-income communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environment threats and hazards like lead in drinking water or nesting areas for mosquitos carrying the Zika virus.

Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can improve their surroundings.

Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy, weatherization, clean-up, and asset revitalization. These improvements would provide protection to our most vulnerable groups.

This program provides better access to technology for underserved communities. Together, the Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture have distributed over 5,000 computers to low income populations.

The Community Leaders Institute is another vital component of the Environmental Justice Program. It ensures that those in leadership positions understand what is happening in their communities and can therefore make informed decisions in regards to their communities.

In addition to promoting environmental sustainability, CLI also brings important factors including public health and economic development into the discussion for community leaders.

The CLI program has been expanded to better serve Native Americans and Alaska Natives, which is a prime example of how various other minority groups can be assisted as well.

Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, and other related subjects.

The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find employment.

Since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has also funded 175 energy projects amounting to over $41.8 million in order to help tribes invest in renewable sources of energy.

With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can provide clean energy options to our most underserved communities and help improve their environments, which will yield better health outcomes and greater public awareness.

We must help our low income and minority communities and ensure equality for those who are most vulnerable in our country.

I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment for the Environmental Justice Program.

Mr. Chair, I ask my friends and my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to take this opportunity just to show this picture to my colleagues on the floor of the House and the headline that says: ``Urban Flooding in Houston is on the Rise.''

I clearly just used the city of Houston by coincidence, but I will tell you that this is what we are facing, really, across America.

The opening sentence of the article says: ``Before you can fix a problem, you need to know what's causing it.''

My amendment is just that. My amendment--as I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work on this legislation in doing the best that we can under the circumstances of trying to preserve the balance--speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' investigations account by redirecting $3 million for increased funding for postdisaster watershed assessment studies, like the one that has been contemplated in many areas around the country.

As the Federal agency that collects and studies basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor and flood and storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a critical role in building, maintaining, and expanding the most critical of the Nation's infrastructure.

When questioning the Army Corps of Engineers about a certain area in my community covering a number of bayous, which we are called The Bayou City--Sims Bayou, Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Clear Creek Bayou--it is the same all over the Nation: the Army Corps of Engineers said they need to study the issue to know how to best resolve it.

My amendment is just that. It is resources to be directed to ensure that we are allowed to study issues so that we can focus the dollars correctly as we attempt to work collaboratively with our local communities.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I make this point: such a study is certainly needed, given the frequency and severity of historic-level flood events in many parts around our Nation and in the area in which I live.

On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in the Houston area over a 12-hour period.

Let me be very mindful, this is not an earmark. It simply says that we should have the resources to study these issues so that we can direct moneys in the right way.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks by indicating that I believe this particular amendment will be helpful in general to, in essence, provide funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' investigations account and ensuring that a postdisaster watershed assessment can result.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Ms. Kaptur in particular. We have spoken about this for probably over a 2-year period. I think the very fact that my particular area can be cited as an example of what happens when you have urban flooding is just an example.

Over this past summer, we know that we have had some serious loss of life when rivers have overflowed or areas where water is and people have been recreating have overflowed, and so the idea of saving lives is part of my amendment as well.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.

My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ``Investigations'' account by redirecting $3 million for increased funding for post-disaster watershed assessment studies, like the one that is being contemplated for the Houston/Harris County metropolitan area.

As the federal agency that collects and studies basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor, and flood and storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a critical role in the building, maintaining, and expanding of the most critical of the nation's infrastructure.

We understand this very well in my home state of Texas and the Eighteenth Congressional District that I represent.

The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the Harris County Flood Control District since 1937 to reduce the risk of flooding within Harris County.

Current projects include 6 federal flood risk management projects: Sims Bayou, Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Clear Creek.

In addition to these ongoing projects, the Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains the Addicks and Barker (A&B) Detention Dams in northwest Harris County.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased that the bill provides that the Secretary of the Army may initiate up to six new study starts during fiscal year 2018, and that five of those studies are to consist of studies where the majority of the benefits are derived from flood and storm damage reduction or from navigation transportation savings.

I am optimistic that one of those new study starts will be the Houston Regional Watershed Assessment Flood Risk Management Feasibility study.

Such a study is certainly needed given the frequency and severity of historic-level flood events in recent years in and around the Houston metropolitan area.

On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in the Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several areas exceeding the 100 to 500 year flood event record.

The areas that experience these historic rainfalls were west of I-45, north of I-10, and Greens Bayou.

Additionally, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over the Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in just 14 hours.

The purpose of the Houston Regional Watershed Assessment is to identify risk reduction measures and optimize performance from a multi- objective systems performance perspective of the regional network of nested and intermingled watersheds, reservoir dams, flood flow conveyance channels, storm water detention basins, and related Flood Risk Management (FRM) infrastructure.

Special emphases of the study, which covers 22 primary watersheds within Harris County's 1,756 square miles, will be placed on extreme flood events that exceed the system capacity resulting in impacts to asset conditions/functions and loss of life.

Mr. Chair, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,015 homes were flooded and 8 persons died; during the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400 homes were flooded and 8 deaths recorded.

The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at $3 billion; the 2016 estimate is being compiled and is estimated to be well above $2 billion.

Mr. Chair, minimizing the risk of flood damage to the Houston and Harris County metropolitan area, the nation's 4th largest, is a matter of national significance because the region is one of the nation's major technology, energy, finance, export and medical centers:

1. Port of Houston is the largest bulk port in the world;

2. Texas Medical Center is a world renowned teaching, research and treatment center;

3. Houston is home to the largest conglomeration of foreign bank representation and second only to New York City as home to the most Fortune 500 companies; and

4. The Houston Watershed Assessment study area sits within major Hurricane Evacuation arteries for the larger Galveston Gulf Coast region.

I ask my colleagues to join me and support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 56.

I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work in shepherding this bill to the floor.

[From the Houston Public Media]

Urban Flooding in Houston Is on the Rise

(By Marissa Cummings)

Before you can fix a problem, you need to know what's

causing it.

Dr. Sam Brody, Professor at A&M Galveston, is doing exactly

that.

He focuses on urban flooding and says Houston is the poster

child.

``The bigger driver of this urban flood problem is human

development, it's the spread of impervious surfaces and I

calculated the Houston region increased its pavement by 25

percent over a 15 year period from 1996 to 2010,'' says

Brody.

He is also contributing to national research that will help

alleviate urban flooding across the U.S.

Stephen Costello, Houston's Flood Czar, agrees with Brody's

assessment.

Part of the solution he says is investing in innovative

infrastructure.

``But there has to be a commitment on the part of the

community to invest in infrastructure,'' Costello says. ``And

that's what the voters should be looking at saying `OK, so

let's make sure we continue to invest in the infrastructure,'

and that's where the public needs to get involved.''

Although, we cannot stop flooding from happening, Costello

says we need to mitigate and reduce the risk.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for this very critical work.

My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' construction account by redirecting $100 million for increased funding for critical construction projects like those projects that are current and future projects throughout the Nation.

As a Federal agency that collects and studies basic information pertaining to river and harbor, and flood and storm damage reduction, it is important that the Army Corps of Engineers and the construction unit have the funding to focus its resources around the Nation again.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a critical role in the building, maintaining, and expanding of the most critical of the Nation's infrastructures.

The Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee has an important responsibility, and it is to ensure the safety of the Nation's waterways.

Some of these waterways are in and around many of our States, particularly in the State of Texas. Not only do we have a concept of bayous, but, for example, we are surrounded in many parts by the Gulf. We have an enormous amount of water in rivers, and the Army Corps of Engineers is particularly important as it relates to flooding.

But we have seen flooding across America. So this particular amendment is to ensure that resources are there as Americans face unusual flooding that has been occurring over the last decades.

I will give you an example. During May 2015, in the Houston flood, 3,015 homes were flooded and eight people died. During the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400 homes were flooded and eight deaths were recorded. The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at $3 billion.

I want my colleagues to know that this amendment is not for a region or an area. It is really to help the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by simply thanking the committee and staff and, again, reminding individuals that we can save lives through the work of the Army Corps of Engineers in stopping flooding that impacts not only my region of the country, but really across the country.

I conclude with one final statement: We in our community are entering hurricane season. This will be a very important amendment as we enter hurricane season all over the Nation.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.

My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ``Construction'' account by redirecting $100 million for increased funding for critical construction projects, like those current and future projects proposed for the Houston/Harris County metropolitan area.

As the federal agency that collects and studies basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor, and flood and storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer plays a critical role in the building, maintaining, and expanding the most critical of the nation's infrastructure.

We understand this very well in my home state of Texas and the Eighteenth Congressional District that I represent.

The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the Harris County Flood Control District since 1937 to reduce the risk of flooding within Harris County.

Current projects include 6 federal flood risk management projects:

1. Sims Bayou

2. Greens Bayou

3. Brays Bayou

4. White Oak Bayou

5. Hunting Bayou, and

6. Clear Creek.

In addition to these ongoing projects, the Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains the Addicks and Barker (A&B) Detention Dams in northwest Harris County.

Such a study is certainly needed given the frequency and severity of historic-level flood events in recent years in and around the Houston metropolitan area, it is clear that much more needs to be done to minimize the vulnerability of the nation's 4th largest metropolitan area and economic engine from the flood damage.

On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in the Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several areas exceeding the 100 to 500 year flood event record.

The areas that experienced these historic rain falls were west of I- 45, north of I-10, and Greens Bayou.

Additionally, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over the Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in just 14 hours.

Mr. Chair, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,015 homes were flooded and 8 persons died; during the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400 homes were flooded and 8 deaths recorded.

The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at $3 billion; the 2016 estimate is being compiled and is estimated to be well above $2 billion.

Mr. Chair, minimizing the risk of flood damage to the Houston and Harris County metropolitan area, the nation's 4th largest, is a matter of national significance because the region is one of the nation's major technology, energy, finance, export and medical centers:

1. Port of Houston is the largest bulk port in the world;

2. Texas Medical Center is a world renowned teaching, research and treatment center;

3. Houston is home to the largest conglomeration of foreign bank representation and second only to New York City as home to the most Fortune 500 companies; and

4. The Houston Watershed Assessment study area sits within major Hurricane Evacuation arteries for the larger Galveston Gulf Coast region.

I ask my colleagues to join me and support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 57.

I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work in shepherding this bill to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I ask support for the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple amendment that promotes STEM education, which is really a vital part of the future of this Nation.

In particular, my amendment says: ``None of the funds made available by this act for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science' may be used in contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act.''

This amendment was approved and adopted just in the last session. Twenty years ago, on February 11, we were directed to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.

The Department of Energy ceased to provide equal access in these opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including minorities, Native Americans, and women.

Mr. Chairman, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college students, but only 45 percent of undergraduates

are STEM degree holders. This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of STEM professional, but it also deprives the United States of its best minds to be able to help it in the 21st century.

As the Nation's demographics are shifting and now more children under the age of 1 are minorities, it is critical that we close the gap in the number of minorities who seek system opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to be solved. And perhaps one of these days, a minority engineer or biologist will come up with some of the solutions.

As many have done in the past, the larger point is that we need more STEM educators and more minorities to qualify them. My amendment turns our importance to the importance of energy and science education programs, funded in part by this bill, and will help to ensure that members of unrepresented communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environmental sustainability, preservation, and health.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me take note of some of the colleagues that I have had the privilege of being neighbors to. NASA's Johnson Space Center is, if I might say, one of the neighbors of my community, great respect for the astronauts; Major Bolden, who serves as head of NASA; and Mae Jemison is my neighbor, the first African-American woman who went into space. I want more of those individuals coming from our Nation's schools, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment that will encourage those in low-income communities and minorities, Native Americans, and others to join in and support the opportunities for STEM education.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 58 simply provides that:

``None of the funds made available by this Act for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science' be used in contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).''

This amendment was approved and adopted in identical form on April 29, 2015, during the 114th Congress as an amendment to H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Act of 2016.

Mr. Chair, twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.

The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access in these opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including minorities, Native Americans, and women.

Mr. Chair, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college students, but only 45 percent of undergraduate STEM degree holders.

This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of STEM professionals.

As the nation's demographics are shifting and now most children under the age of one are minorities, it is critical that we close the gap in the number of minorities who seek STEM opportunities.

I encourage Energy Secretary Perry to surpass the commitment of his predecessors' toward increasing the nation's economic competitiveness and enabling more of our people to realize their full potential.

Mr. Chair, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to be solved--and perhaps one of these days a minority engineer or biologist will come-up with some of the solutions.

The larger point is that we need more STEM educators and more minorities to qualify for them.

The energy and science education programs funded in part by this bill will help ensure that members of underrepresented communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environmental sustainability, preservation, and health.

Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can improve their surroundings.

Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, and other related subjects.

The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

The DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find employment.

With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can increase diversity, provide clean energy options to our most underserved communities, and help improve their environments, which will yield better health outcomes and greater public awareness.

But most importantly businesses will have more consumers to whom they may engage in related commercial activities.

My amendment will help ensure that underrepresented communities are able to participate and contribute equitably in the energy and scientific future.

I ask my colleagues to join me and support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 58.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, first, let me say, it was not a $300-some- odd-million plus-up in the fossil energy research. In fact, I think the fossil energy research account was down from last year.

It was more than the President requested, but it is not a plus-up from what it was in 2017.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy by $20 million but has to use $40 million from the Fossil Energy Research & Development account as an offset.

This bill was the result of some tough choices. I have to admit, they were some tough choices. It is not that I oppose the program that the good lady advocates for, but there were some tough choices. We had to prioritize research and development that will increase our energy independence.

Our domestic energy resources are vast, and this bill strikes a balance to lay the foundations for future energy generation technologies, while maintaining full support for the resources we use most today.

Increasing funding for EERE by diverting funding from fossil energy strikes the wrong balance when considering the Nation's electricity needs. Fossil fuels produce 65 percent of the electricity we use today and will continue to provide the majority of the Nation's energy needs in the future.

This amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures that we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well, and as cleanly as possible. For all of the reasons that team fossil talked about earlier tonight, I must oppose the amendment and urge my Members to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlewoman's concern and thank her for her advocacy for this project.

The committee has been supportive of this project and has provided $42 million in prior years. The bill includes an additional $18 million to ensure that the project moves forward, and I am happy to work with her as the project advances and understand this amendment will be withdrawn, and I appreciate that.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern on this issue and appreciate the fact that

he brought it up for discussion here tonight.

I would note that the weapons activities accounts provides funding to ensure the reliability of our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The NNSA does not use funds within this account to counter proliferation of biological weapons, although I understand it is an important issue, and I agree with them we need to address this issue.

However, this amendment increases and decreases the same account and has no effect on the bill overall, so I will accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, although I am opposed to the amendment, I have to admit that I do enjoy our annual discussion on this.

I oppose this amendment because the bill already shows strong support for the nonproliferation programs of the NNSA. Funding for nuclear defense nonproliferation is $1.83 billion--$76.5 million below fiscal year 2017 and $16.8 million below the budget request.

Within nonproliferation, the bill largely supports funding as requested, but makes a limited number of realignments within the account to emphasize the importance of nonproliferation research and development activities and to meet international commitments for plutonium disposition.

Our understanding--and this is the important point. Our understanding is that budget request is down because NNSA still has significant unexpended balances in this account due to slow progress on international nonproliferation agreements.

Specifically, the NNSA reported in May that it had approximately $2.2 billion in funds available to carry out its nonproliferation mission, of which over $680 million is left over from prior years. For years, NNSA has struggled to execute funding in its nonproliferation budget because it could not obtain agreement from other nations to do the work as quickly as planned or as we would maybe like to.

This amendment also targets funding from the weapons activities infrastructure recapitalization program. Created in fiscal year 2014 by Congress, the recapitalization program has been highly successful in addressing the aging and deteriorating infrastructure at NNSA sites. Replacing things like telephone poles, leaking fireman valves, roofing, and addressing other basic infrastructure needs are essential to the safe and continued operation of these nuclear security sites.

The budget request proposed to cut the program, and the bill increases funding $118 million above the request to restore that program to the fiscal year 2017 level. We should not divert funding needed to address these urgent infrastructure needs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this infrastructure need is not for a new pit facility. They would need to come to us and ask us what they were going to do with funding, and request funding for that. They did not do that. This is for infrastructure needs and upgrades.

But the other thing is that I am as much a nonproliferation activist as anyone in this body. I think it is important work. But the reality is that there are $681 million unexpended from previous years, not because funding is not available--the money is there--but they haven't been able to get agreements with other countries. Unfortunately, you can't do work in other countries without having agreements with those countries.

So, consequently, we are--I guess you could maybe say--overfunded in nonproliferation if we can't spend the money on that activity. That is the problem.

Why would we put the money into that when we need the money in infrastructure and building and repairing the buildings and facilities that NNSA has?

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I am sure if this amendment is defeated, we will have this discussion next year, and I hope my colleagues will vote against this.

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

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

While there may be instances--and I am sure there are--in which greater coordination would be helpful in ensuring our coastal resources are available for future generations, any such coordination must be done carefully to protect against Federal overreach.

As we saw with the Obama administration's WOTUS rule to redefine waters of the United States, thorough and strong Congressional oversight is needed to ensure that we protect private property rights.

Unfortunately, the way the Obama administration developed the National Ocean Policy increased the opportunities for Federal overreach. The implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping that it may allow the Federal Government to affect agricultural practices, mining, energy producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact on the oceans.

The facts is that the previous administration did not work with Congress. This is their National Ocean Policy. They never brought it to Congress.

If you are going to do something this sweeping, you need to have congressional input. They never came to Congress to develop its plan, and they had even refused to provide relevant information to Congress. So we can't be sure how sweeping it actually could be if left unchecked.

That is why I support the language of the underlying bill and, therefore, oppose this amendment. But I understand their concern. But why not bring it to Congress? Why not have Congress enact the National Ocean Policy instead of just relying on the executive branch to do whatever they want to do? That is the problem the Natural Resources Committee has with this. It is a problem I have with this, and that is why I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will just say it is kind of interesting that I don't disagree with anything Ms. Pingree is saying. The problem is, there is a process, and Congress needs to be involved.

The last administration did not involve Congress. If it is a good policy, why don't we just let the administration do it? If you can't get the votes on the floor, doesn't that tell you something?

Maybe you need to go and work this out and bring the policy to the floor. But if we are just going to let the administration do that, I don't know, maybe we will let this administration just enact a tax policy because we have a tough time doing it here in Congress. I don't know, maybe we will let them enact the healthcare policy because we can't get together on the floor to see what to do about our healthcare system, so let's just let the administration do it all.

It is exactly what you are doing with this. You bring an actual ocean policy to the floor, if I think it is a good bill

and necessary, I will vote for it. I can't tell you what I will vote for yet because I haven't seen it.

But just because Congress hasn't acted doesn't give the administrative branch of government the right to interject itself and take on the legislative branch of government's responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I will just say, the usurpation by the administrative branch of government over Congress happens with both Republican and Democratic administrations. I remember someone standing up and saying: Well, if Congress won't do it, I have a pen and a phone.

This is Congress surrendering our responsibility, and even though you might like the outcome of what they do, it is the wrong thing to do, and Congress needs to stand up at times and take back our responsibility than just saying: Well, I don't really like the way it was done, but I like the policy, so I will just support it. And that is what we are doing here. That is the problem with the National Ocean Policy.

Again, I would encourage the supporters of this, and who knows, I might be one of them, to bring it to Congress. Let's debate it. Let's have a good healthy debate on this floor. Go through the committee process, go through the regular order, and then it is something that we might be able to support in the appropriations process.

Other than that, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that they have brought a lot of nuclear waste to the State of Idaho. We process it there. It was Rocky Flats that was, they say, cleaned up. It wasn't cleaned up; it was moved to Idaho because we got most of their stuff there. That is kind of what happens.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I think we all understand why my colleagues from Nevada oppose Yucca Mountain, their position on Yucca Mountain; however, I cannot support this amendment. It is time to move forward with the Yucca licensing process.

The previous administration ignored the law. I repeat that--ignored the law. Ignoring our obligation to take responsibility for this spent fuel, and breaking trust with 32 States stopped this process in its tracks.

I don't think I have to state why that happened. It wasn't because of science or anything else. We all know why they stopped the licensing process at Yucca Mountain.

The decision has already cost taxpayers $6 billion in claims, and the Department of Energy estimates at least another $24 billion in claims.

This administration has taken swift action to put us back on track, and the budget request proposed in this bill includes $150 million for Yucca licensing efforts. Licensing efforts will continue to involve experts in geochemistry, hydrology, geology, seismology, volcanology, and more to ensure that Yucca Mountain, already one of the most studied pieces of land on Earth--I would say the most studied piece of land on Earth. There were 52 or 53 National Academy of Sciences studies on Yucca Mountain that have been done. But it will get a careful review from all aspects of its license applications.

Once that application is finished, all Members of this body and of the Senate will have the opportunity to decide whether we move forward to construct and use the facility. But killing the process at this point is shortsighted, and, therefore, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say in response: Then change the law. The law is that Yucca Mountain is the waste repository for high-level nuclear waste. All we are asking is to continue the licensing process.

As I said during my opening statement, Congress will have a chance to vote on whether to proceed with the construction of this facility. That is the reality. But we have got to get off the dime and start moving and handling this nuclear waste or it is going to cost us billions and billions and billions more.

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

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the underlying bill has language on this issue, but I understand that the requirement may not be as comprehensive as my colleague supports. I am concerned that the amendment before us may have unintended consequences. If my colleague would withdraw the amendment today, I will commit to working together as this bill moves through the legislative process to see if we can address her concerns in a manner acceptable to everyone. Otherwise, I will have to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman is willing to withdraw the amendment, we will work together to see if we can solve this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I compliment the gentlewoman for her consistency. She is a true budget hawk in trying to make sure that we ultimately balance this budget. It is tough work to do that.

We have actually, as she mentioned, reduced spending in this bill over last year. Could we reduce it another 1 percent across the board? The problem is we have to choose some priority in the bill.

The highest priority we had was our Nation's defense, the nuclear weapons program. Even though the overall bill is down $206 million, the defense activities are actually up nearly a billion dollars.

We then have to look at the infrastructure of this Nation and the fact that we have deteriorating infrastructure, and Congress has told us that each year we have to meet what is called the WRDA target. We have to spend with the Army Corps of Engineers to meet the infrastructure of our harbors, dams, and inland waterways and restore those things, because it is very important to our commerce and something the Congress supports greatly.

So when we have had to increase the Army Corps of Engineers funding over what was spent last year and then we have had to increase weapons activity, that means the Department of Energy has been significantly reduced over what they were last year.

We have had to make some very hard choices. We have cut the EERE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, program in half from $2 billion to $1 billion, roughly.

We have had to eliminate the ARPA-E program, a program that I happen to support, but we just don't have the money for it.

We have had to eliminate the loan guarantee program, a program that, again, I support, but we just don't have the money for it.

So we have made some significant reductions while prioritizing basic science research and those types of activities within the Department of Energy. I think we have done a good job, given a pretty skinny budget. We have made tough choices. That is okay. That is what we do all the time in the Appropriations Committee.

The reality is, if we are ever going to balance this budget, if anybody looks at the numbers, right now we are spending about 70 percent of our total Federal budget on mandatory programs. We have been reducing discretionary spending over the years. As a portion of the total budget, it has gone down every year.

If we don't get a hold of mandatory spending--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt--within 10 years we will have enough money for our mandatory programs and defense, nothing else-- zero.

We are not going to balance this budget by reducing discretionary spending. Keeping control of it, you bet, that is what we have been doing. That is what the Appropriations Committee has been doing since 2010, or earlier. We have actually been reducing spending. It is very important that we do that. But we have to get a hold of mandatory spending if we are going to balance the budget.

So while I appreciate what the gentlewoman is trying to do, I agree with her, we need to balance this budget. We need to balance this budget. Unfortunately, this is not the way to do it.

So I have to oppose this amendment and hope my colleagues would oppose it also.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, while I would like to support this amendment, unfortunately, I can't. But, believe me, I understand and have learned from Ms. Kaptur and the members of the Great Lakes States when I was chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. And now she sits on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee with me, and they have all come and talked to me about this problem.

This, unfortunately, pits kind of one State against another, and what I am trying to do is find a solution to this, because I happen to agree with these individuals that it seems rather silly that we go out and ask for a report to be done and then can't seem to get it released--not only the final report, we can't even get a draft report released that will go out for comment. That doesn't make any sense to me.

But I know that there are Members who also have concerns about that, but that is, frankly, why you release a draft report, so that you can get the comments.

During full committee consideration on the Energy and Water bill, we discussed a similar amendment that was offered by Ms. Kaptur, my ranking member, Mr. Joyce, and Mr. Moolenaar; and I committed to them at the time that I would work with all interested parties and Members to try to move these efforts forward, and I am happy to reiterate that commitment now.

What I am asking is if the gentleman will withdraw the amendment, give me a chance, and I commit to try to get this report out, because I think it needs to get done, and I think, together, we can convince the Army Corps and maybe the administration that it needs to get done. So that would be my request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment to support the growth of vibrant coastal economies and creation of fisheries and agriculture jobs.

The National Ocean Policy is helping agencies and States collaborate to reduce illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and one can just take a look that the ocean policy supports almost 2 million fisheries-related jobs in our country and $5.3 billion in commercial fish landings, as well as enhanced tourism, and the National Ocean Policy doesn't cost us anything.

I just want to remind people that our country currently imports 91 percent of consumed seafood, with half coming from foreign agriculture. So this policy is extraordinarily important.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman so much for coming to the floor tonight, and I want to thank all of our colleagues who have spoken out so eloquently on the importance of National Ocean Policy in supporting the Pingree, et al. amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has a point of view that I do not support, but in terms of this amendment, it really is not necessary. It is redundant. On March 28 of this year, Executive Order No. 13783, signed by President Donald Trump, has rescinded every one of the analyses that the gentleman referenced in his proposed amendment. So this amendment does less than nothing. It has already been dealt with through executive order.

I would just encourage my colleagues to let's move the agenda along this evening where we will have significant debate perhaps on other matters.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is redundant at this point, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. I am very glad to hear what the gentlewoman is saying. She is trying to do everything she can to support American-made products and particularly American-made anchor chain. I would be willing to work with the chairman and the gentlewoman as the process goes forward to ensure we purchase American-made products. I just wanted to express that support. I thank the gentleman for his offer.

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

Mr. Chairman, with all the respect I have for Congressman Burgess, I oppose this damaging rider which would block the Department of Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs.

This rider was a bad idea when it was first offered 7 years ago, and it is even more unsupportable now. Why do I say that? Because every claim made by proponents of the rider have been proven wrong.

Number one, we have been told, including by Dr. Burgess, that the energy efficiency standards would ban incandescent lightbulbs. That is simply false. You can go to the store today and see shelves of modern energy efficient incandescent lightbulbs that meet the standard, and they are the same as the old bulbs except they last longer, use less electricity, and save consumers money.

Then we heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict consumer choice.

If you have shopped for lightbulbs lately, which I have, you know that isn't true. In fact, modern incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and LEDs of every shape, size, and color are now available.

Consumers have never had more choice, and the efficiency standard spurred innovation that dramatically expanded options for consumers. I am amazed how many shelves lightbulbs now occupy in the stores.

Critics of the efficiency standards claim that they would cost consumers money. In fact, the opposite is true. When the standards are in full effect, the average American family will save about $100 per year. That is pretty good. That is $12.5 billion in savings for consumers and businesses nationwide every year. That is $12.5 billion. But this rider threatens those savings. That is why consumer groups have consistently opposed this rider.

Here is the reality. The 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to enjoy overwhelming industry support. U.S. manufacturers are already meeting the efficiency standards.

The effect of the rider is to allow foreign manufacturers to sell old, inefficient lightbulbs in the United States that violate the efficiency standards. That is unfair to domestic manufacturers who have invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make efficient bulbs that meet the standards.

Why on Earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalize U.S. manufacturers who are following our laws?

But it gets even worse. The mere existence of this rider poses and additional threat to U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 Energy bill required the Department of Energy to establish updated lightbulb efficiency standards by January 1 of this year. It also provided that, if final updated standards are not issued by then, a more stringent backstop standard of 45 lumens per watt automatically takes effect, and incandescent lightbulbs currently cannot meet this backstop standard.

Well, we are well into 2017, and the Burgess lightbulb rider has remained on the books. So, earlier this year, the Department of Energy had to go forward with finalizing the 45-lumens-per-watt backstop standard.

Approving this rider year after year is ultimately what blocked the Department of Energy from issuing the required efficiency standards in time to avoid such stringent measures. Ironically, it is this rider that would effectively ban the incandescent lightbulb in 2020.

The Burgess rider directly threatens existing lightbulb manufacturing jobs in the United States. It would stifle innovation and punish companies that have invested in domestic manufacturing. This rider aims to reverse years of technological progress, only to kill jobs, increase electricity bills for our consumers, and worsen pollution.

It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology. It is time to listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency advocates who all agree that this rider is harmful.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Burgess lightbulb rider, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this particular amendment.

I say to the gentleman: For the company in your district, the regulations include the opportunity for waiver. And I would hope that the company in your district would be able to work that out.

The amendment that the gentleman proposes seeks to prohibit the Department of Energy from implementing testing procedures for the energy efficiency standards set for heat pumps and air-conditioners.

I, as the consumer, whether I am buying a heat pump, a furnace, a refrigerator--and every American who now shops looks for those--that is like the sticker. That is what you really look for, and you want to know how much you are going to pay every year for what that product will cost you for energy. And the better product you have, and you are able to put that on a label and it is verified by the Department of Energy, that helps sales.

The original standards that were created were supported and have been supported by the Edison Electric Institute, the association which represents all investor-owned utilities. The amendment, by the way, is opposed by the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, which represents manufacturers of HVAC systems that employ over 1.3 million Americans. And industry opposes the amendment, environmentalists oppose it, because it would cost an average--a cumulative cost to Americans of $12.2 billion over 30 years.

So there is a lot of opposition to this. It is important to note that these standards were negotiated in a collaborative process by industry groups, environmental nonprofits, and consumer advocates with the Department of Energy. A rider like this one damages the integrity of the negotiated rulemaking process, which is designed to provide certainty and voice to the industry and education and information to consumers.

Test procedures are simple and important. The Department of Energy develops them to make sure companies are rating their product accurately so consumers don't get stuck paying higher bills than they expect, so you know what you buy.

Let's be clear. This amendment would effectively nullify the efficiency standards for heating and cooling systems, in spite of the fact that these standards project that it will save billions of dollars over the period that they are applied, and that is equivalent to having 1 million fewer homes connected to the grid over the same period. It is an enormous savings.

If there is a particular company that is unfairly impacted by these rules, there are outlets for regulatory relief through waivers, as I have mentioned, and this amendment would neuter

those standards and thereby allow cheap imports to undercut American products by exploiting the lack of standards.

We don't want to go back to that. I look for those yellow labels. To protect American manufacturers, to save Americans money on their utility bills, and to reduce air pollution, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

The gentleman may have a good intention in offering this amendment, but I don't think you want to take away the benefits to the American people for one company in your district when that company, in fact, can negotiate and receive a waiver. I would just ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friends, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Huizenga and, I have no doubt, many fellow travelers from the Great Lakes delegation on both sides of the aisle. I find it somewhat unusual that it is the last amendment this evening after midnight. I wish it had come up about 6 o'clock on the evening news.

This is an issue we know well, as Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Mitchell, and certainly our chairman, Mr. Simpson, has heard a great deal about this now, and our ranking members on the full committee as well.

We introduced a bill last month with the same ultimate effect of preventing the spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes represent a $7 billion fishery, deeply threatened by these critters, Asian carp, that shouldn't even be in this country but began their movement up the Mississippi River when they were brought in to do bottom cleaning in Mississippi in the special fish tanks that were set up down there many years ago as bottom feeders. There was some type of storm and they hopped out. The walls were breached, and they began their journey up the Mississippi until now. They are within just a few miles of Lake Michigan.

Just a few weeks ago, a 28-inch Asian carp was caught beyond the protective barriers, which is a temporary solution, only 9 miles from Lake Michigan. Yet, even in this time of greatest danger, the Brandon Road Study, which Congressman Mitchell outlined, which merely identifies options for preventing Asian carp from reaching the Great Lakes, has not been released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

This amendment would prevent the administration from expending any more funds to further delay the release of this study for public comment.

My colleagues should know that this study is already completed. After working on it for years at a cost of nearly $7 million, it now sits on a shelf at the Corps, and they are unwilling to release it for reasons we do not understand.

Asian carp represent a serious economic and environmental threat to the entire Great Lakes. These mean critters are voracious eaters. They destroy native species and overwhelm their new ecosystems. They have gotten into the Ohio River, and they have gotten into rivers near Peoria. They eat up everything in their sight. They completely upend native ecosystems, and it is truly terrifying what they will do to our lakes, as you can see in this photograph. They are prolific, they are large, and they are predatory.

We should be aggressively pursuing action to prevent the spread of the Asian carp to the Great Lakes, yet the roadmap to getting there is locked in bureaucratic purgatory.

Finally, I would like to point out that this is not a partisan issue. Our substantively similar bill has 15 Republican and 16 Democratic cosponsors, who represent the vast majority of the Great Lakes coastline. In these hyperpartisan times, our constituents are united in their love for the Great Lakes, their desire to protect them, and their understanding of how vital they are to the future of this country and continent.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment from all of my colleagues in order to save the national treasures that are the Great Lakes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Mitchell and Congressman Huizenga for taking the lead this evening from the great Wolverine State--and we Buckeyes don't often say that, do we--for embracing what is truly important to all of us, and I urge my colleagues to support the Mitchell-Huizenga amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee for his extraordinary work and for the chairman of the subcommittee for this auspicious opportunity.

I have been listening to the arguments recently that we have had on the floor regarding the most recent amendments between fossil fuels and renewables, and I am hoping to strike a sweet spot here. I am not picking on fossil fuels, and I am going to talk about a renewable that I think everybody has an affinity for and an agreement with.

This amendment simply increases funding for hydroelectric through the EERE by $15 million and decreases funding to the bureaucracy. There is no increase to the budget. This amendment just increases the appropriation for the Office of Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy because hydropower is available in every region of the country; 2,200 hydropower plants provide America's most abundant source of clean, renewable electricity. I would say it is the first renewable. It accounts for 67 percent of domestic renewable generation and, clearly, 7 percent of total electricity generation.

By 2025, hydropower would create almost a million and a half new, good, high-paying jobs. It can be implemented in rivers, harbors, coastal areas, et cetera, to capture energy from currents and tides. Harnessing this energy will create a truly and absolutely renewable and green source of energy without any emissions and with little fanfare to everybody involved.

Hydro is predictable year-round power output, while other renewable source outputs can be variable in some areas and necessitate the use of large battery banks and alternate power sources. For instance, sometimes when the wind doesn't blow, believe it or not, if you don't know it, there is a gas-fired generator often associated with those windmill farms that has to come on because base load isn't being serviced.

Hydropower facilities are quiet, unobtrusive, while many people report that considerable noise is generated by wind power and that land is taken up by huge solar farms.

Hydropower is base load energy. That means it is on all the time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, just sitting there turning out the power so that you can hit the light switch when you come home and not wonder: Is the power going to be on? It backs up other intermittent sources of energy.

Hydropower is safe. It harms neither fish nor man. It all faces a comprehensive and regular regulatory approval process.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of what we hear is is that our constituents wish that we would work together more often, and I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and her support; and I think it is just proof that we can work together for something that we agree on, which is clean power, the power to just power our future, and that comes from hydroelectricity.

I don't know why it is not as sexy as it should be. I think it is one of the greatest marvels of technology starting back since the beginning of time and when power was first generated, and I don't understand why we don't rely on it more.

To that end, literally 60,000 megawatts of preliminary permits and projects await final approval and are pending before FERC in 45 States right now. Eighty thousand--80,000--nonpowered dams in the United States, of which 600 have immediate hydro capability, right now could be producing energy.

Mr. Chair, 80,000 nonpowered dams in the United States, just think about that. And the State I hail from and I am privileged to represent a portion of, Pennsylvania, has 678 megawatts of untapped hydropower right now.

Mr. Chairman, I would just urge all of our colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I, again, appreciate the chairmen of the committee and of the subcommittee for this opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for the extraordinary work they have done in a very limited amount of time.

This amendment would prohibit the use of funds to implement or enforce the final rule published by the former Secretary of Energy, entitled: ``Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps.''

Mr. Chairman, this is simply an example of too much Washington, too much government. I am sure it was well-intended, but I am not sure if the good idea fairies in Washington really realized fully what they did.

Certainly we want to have test standards and so on and so forth, but the one-size-fits-all approach that comes out of Washington misses some folks and can cause some irreparable damage to businesses all around the country.

And all around the country there are small manufacturers that are trying to build some air-conditioners. In particular, there is one in the district that I represent that builds custom-made air-conditioners and heat pumps for skyscrapers and high-rise buildings.

If I can picture the scene, the original units are put in when the buildings are being constructed. So there are cranes available, there are openings in the walls and in the structure, and they just move the stuff in, and then they close it all up.

In 10, 15, 20, 30 years later when they go to replace it, well, the walls are in, the windows are in, the people are in, the offices are in. There is no crane available, and they have to piece this thing together through the elevator and into the closet. So this company, like other ones around the country, make custom-made ones, each one for a specific application--each one.

But the Department of Energy, and this rule in particular, says that this company must test each model that they make for these efficiency standards--each one--an arduous test taking months, if not years, in documentation for one application.

Again, I am sure the Department of Energy was well-intended. However, this rule is going to put a business out. They work in the city of York, a fine city in central Pennsylvania, right downtown where we want manufacturing to happen, where people can walk to work. These folks are trying. They are struggling to survive in this economy, and the only thing that is going to put them out is this regulation, Mr. Chairman.

While well-intended, it is not going to be helpful. These folks are trying to do the right thing, but the government is getting in the way.

Believe it or not, Consumer Reports actually recommended against buying some of these systems under this testing rule because the systems had higher costs and poor repair records.

Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, the free market actually fixes most of this stuff. Most of us want to buy more efficient things that are cheaper, that are easier to maintain, and have a better record. This is Consumer Reports talking. This isn't Perry's record. This is Consumer Reports talking.

Let us not put this company out of business. Let us not put these companies out of business. Let us be responsible. I urge passage.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement that the regulations have to be in place. I, too, like the yellow sticker, just like she does; and somehow the yellow stickers are in place without this new rule. They are there right now. You have been seeing them for years. This is new--this is a new regulation.

I would contend that, yeah, the manufacturers have gotten on board and they have negotiated this rule. Because what choice did they have, right?

The Federal Government is going to regulate. They are going to do it. You either get in the game and play ball or you know what happens to the bat. Right? They didn't want to be in that position, so they took the best they could.

I am telling you and it is my contention that the free market is going to figure this out because we all want the most efficient, the most cost-effective, and the most maintenance-effective, whether it is an air-conditioner, whether it is a car, or whether it is an electric toothbrush.

We don't need the Federal Government telling us to do it. By the way, this company has applied for a waiver, years in the making. They literally have the president of the company spending almost, he said, 85 percent of his time dealing with Federal regulation compliance.

The president of the company is the guy who wants to hire these 125 people, go make sales, and produce things. Instead, all he is doing is dealing with the Federal Government. Somehow, someway we all got to this point.

It feels pretty cool in the Capitol right now, right? It feels pretty cool in the House of Representatives.

The yellow labels were there before this regulation ever happened.

Mr. Chairman, I ask and urge the Members to vote in favor of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Simpson and Ms. Kaptur for working to try to put forward a bill and to recognize the unfortunate addition of riders, which we would hope that we could pass these kinds of bills in the appropriate manner. But I thank them for their work, and I thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order.

This is an important part of the Energy and Water legislation in Appropriations, and that is the Department of Energy's departmental work that it does with environmental justice.

My amendment would ask for an additional $1 million to be placed in that program under the administrative office's responsibilities, and to do so because it is an essential tool in the effort to improve the lives of low-income and minority communities as well as the environment at large.

Many of my Members here have worked on this issue, in particular, Jim Clyburn and the Congressional Black Caucus, over the years. I add to their work by making sure that this is a focus of the Department of Energy.

Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority-serving institutions, Tribal colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting sustainability and growth of the community and environment. In particular, those individuals who study this issue in those particular institutions of higher learning go out to communities and are a source of research and aid to communities that suffer from the lack of environmental justice, for example, in Flint, Michigan. It is clear that that is a place where there was an infusion of experts on how to deal with unclean water.

I worked with Dr. Hotez, one of the renown infectious disease physicians in Houston, Texas, when the Zika virus began to take over in the summer in, particularly, minority communities.

DOE's Environmental Justice Program provides dollars to be awarded to an important cause of increasing youth involvement in STEM and promoting clean energy, weatherization, cleanup, and asset revitalization.

Weatherization is extremely important. The housing stock in my congressional district, as in rural communities, is extremely old and sometimes weak and subjected to the whims of bad winter weather and the whims of very hot summers. These dollars can assist in these kinds of programs.

The Community Leadership Institute is another vital component of the Environmental Justice Program, and it promotes environmental sustainability. It brings important factors, including public health and economic development. It is an important program that helps Native Americans and Alaskan Natives.

So I hope that my colleagues can support the Jackson Lee amendment because it deals with an expanse and an emphasis on the importance of a quality of life that can deal with a good environment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, what we are glad to say is that we emphasize and ask for that amount of dollars within the administrative account to be increased on the Environmental Justice Program.

We are grateful for the statement of the chairman, and with that in mind, we want to remind our colleagues that STEM programs, the program that helps in leadership, in particular, that will help young people learn more about environmental justice, the issues that we see in communities with clean water, clean air, the Zika virus, and other elements that impact on minority communities, the Environmental Justice Program can be very helpful and very useful. I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk; No. 25.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.

My amendment increases funding for DOE departmental administration by $1,000,000 which should be used to enhance the Department's Environmental Justice program activities.

Mr. Chair, the Environmental Justice Program is an essential tool in the effort to improve the lives of low income and minority communities as well as the environment at large.

Twenty-four years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.

A healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community which fosters personal and economic growth.

Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting sustainability and growth of the community and environment.

The funding of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued preservation of their homes.

The crisis in Flint, Michigan teaches us how important it is that minority groups and low-income communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environment threats and hazards like lead in drinking water or nesting areas for mosquitos carrying the Zika virus.

Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can improve their surroundings.

Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy, weatherization, clean-up, and asset revitalization. These improvements would provide protection to our most vulnerable groups.

This program provides better access to technology for underserved communities.

Together, the Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture have distributed over 5,000 computers to low income populations.

The Community Leaders Institute is another vital component of the Environmental Justice Program. It ensures that those in leadership positions understand what is happening in their communities and can therefore make informed decisions in reards to their communities.

In addition to promoting environmental sustainability, CLI also brings important factors including public health and economic development into the discussion for community leaders.

The CLI program has been expanded to better serve Native Americans and Alaska Natives, which is a prime example of how various other minority groups can be assisted as well.

Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, and other related subjects.

The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

The DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find employment.

Since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has also funded 175 energy projects amounting to over $41.8 million in order to help tribes invest in renewable sources of energy.

With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can provide clean energy options to our most underserved communities and help improve their environments, which will yield better health outcomes and greater public awareness.

We must help our low income and minority communities and ensure equality for those who are most vulnerable in our country.

I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment for the Environmental Justice Program.

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