Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2018

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present to the House the fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Before I review the details of the bill, I would like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for his leadership and unwavering commitment to the appropriations process. Our committee is back on track to bring 12 bills through the committee markup and before the full House for the second year in a row.

I would also like to thank Ranking Members Lowey and Kaptur. As always, their thoughtful approach to the issues have made this a better bill, even though I was disappointed that the gentlewoman from New York, who is my friend, said she didn't like the Energy and Water bill just now.

The Energy and Water bill totals $44.7 billion, which is $1.5 billion more than last year's level and $8.2 billion above the budget request.

Increases over last year were targeted to those areas where they are needed most: to provide for our Nation's defense and to support our Nation's infrastructure.

The bill provides a total of $15.3 billion for the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons security programs, including Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, a $644 million increase above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level and $222 million above the President's budget request

It aligns with the administration's Nuclear Posture Review and calls for continuing to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to meet the challenges of a changing security environment, revitalizing our nuclear complex, and supporting effective arms control and nonproliferation efforts.

Additionally, the bill provides for funding increases across the Department of Energy to defend against cyber attacks and within the administration's new Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response Office to strengthen energy-sector cybersecurity preparedness, response, and recovery.

The bill includes strong funding for the Army Corps of Engineers-- $451 million more than last year and $2.5 billion more than the budget request. This is to address our Nation's critical infrastructure needs.

Harbor maintenance activities are funded at $1.6 billion, which is $200 million more than the fiscal year 2018 appropriation. The level exceeds the WRDA annual target by $160 million and represents--and I am proud of this--95 percent of the estimated revenue.

Basic science research and applied energy research and development programs at the Department of Energy, including Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, the Office of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and ARPA-E, are strongly supported in this bill. Taken together, these programs advance the all-of-the-above energy strategy that will support a strong national economy well into the future.

Finally, the bill sends a clear message that it is time to address the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and finish the Yucca Mountain license application, with $220 million going to the Department of Energy and $47.7 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We simply cannot wait any longer to finish the license application process and proceed to construction and operation of the permanent repository.

This is a strong bill that incorporates priorities and interests of all Members of the House. In fact, this bill addresses, in full or in part, 94 percent of the more than 3,000 separate requests that we received from Members. I urge my colleagues to support this.

Before I end, I would like to say and emphasize what the chairman said. These bills would not be possible without the strong work and the competent

work of the staff of the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, both minority and majority, and also from our personal offices. They do a great job trying to address the concerns of individual Members and the requests of individual Members. We wouldn't be able to do this without the strong work they do, and I thank them for that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate my colleague's support for the cleanup activities of the Department of Energy.

The bill provides $62 million for the cleanup at DOE's nondefense small sites, $7.1 million above the budget request. Within that, funding for the Moab uranium mill tailings site is available at $42 million. We would be pleased to work with the gentleman from Utah on expediting cleanup of the site and appreciate his support for the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, I understand the Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study is of great importance to my colleague from New York as well as other Members from the Great Lakes region. I would like to note that the underlying bill includes funding and authority for new studies, including a multipurpose study like the Great Lakes study.

I also remind my colleagues that the amendment increases the funding level of an account. It does not direct the funding to any particular activity. For that reason and because the amendment does not constitute a major shift in funding between accounts, I would not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), if she has any comments to make.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I want to assure my colleague that when the Appropriations Committee develops its bills it takes into consideration the requests and priorities of Members of the House. Funding levels in the underlying bill reflect those requests, including those requests from the gentleman from Louisiana.

Specifically, funding above the budget request for construction of navigation projects totals $625 million, an increase of $176 million above fiscal year 2018.

Additional funding for operation and maintenance of inland navigation projects is at $50 million, an increase of $20 million above last year's additional funding level.

While we can't specify funding for any particular project, we have worked hard to ensure significant funding for which projects not in the budget request can compete.

I would be happy to continue working with my colleague from Louisiana to ensure significant funding for the critical water resources infrastructure work of the Corps of Engineers, and I thank him for his willingness to withdraw the amendment.

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. Chair, I can certainly understand my colleague's interest in this issue, and I agree that there are certain circumstances where the Corps should consider more than just commercial tonnage using a waterway when allocating funding. In fact, a report accompanying the bill directs the Corps to consider several criteria other than just tonnage.

Since the amendment does not upset the balance of priorities within the bill nor direct funds to any particular project or activity, I will not oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. Yes, it is true that this was written in 1977. The law has stayed the same since 1977. That doesn't mean that the interpretation of the law by agencies has been the same since then, and that interpretation has changed over time.

In recent years, the Corps and the EPA have changed the implementation of these provisions to significantly reduce the application of the statutory exemptions. This language in the underlying bill is intended to get us back to the original intent of the law. That is all it is meant to do is get back to the original intent of the law.

If the gentleman is correct and they are interpreting the law the same as they have for 40 years, then this wouldn't be necessary. But the fact is that is not the case. They have been changing the way they implement this law. This is meant to get us back to the original intent, and, therefore, I must oppose the amendment that would strike this language.

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

I understand the gentleman seeks to show support for additional funding for projects such as the one important to his district and his constituents.

I would note that the underlying bill includes a total of $379 million above the budget request for various types of projects that may have public health benefits. Since the amendment before us does not upset the balance of priorities within the bill nor direct funds to any particular project or activity, I would not oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentlewoman seeks to show support for additional funding for water research and development activities that are important to her district and to the country.

I would just like to clarify that the amendment does not direct funds to any particular activities. For that reason and because it does not upset the balance within the bill, I will not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman seeks to show support for additional funding for fish screen projects important to his district and his constituents. I would simply note that this account is one where we historically have given the administration, Republican or Democratic, great flexibility in allocating the funds. If there is widespread interest, we should take a comprehensive look at funding levels within the program, not just adjust funding levels in one activity.

Since the amendment does not direct funds to a specific activity and because it does not upset the balance of the bill, I will not oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion for research and development in the Water Power Technologies Office. He is a strong advocate in his State for research in this important work.

Although I could not support the original amendment, I would appreciate it if the gentleman would be willing to withdraw it and instead work together as we move toward conference to discuss efficient funding for the Water Power Technologies Office.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, similar to the previous amendment, I appreciate my colleague's passion for this important research and development and work done in the Water Power Technologies Office. They are each strong advocates, and I recognize their leadership in their States for this important work.

Although I could not support this amendment, I would again make the offer that, if the gentlewoman is willing to withdraw the amendment, I would work with her and others to make sure that we have sufficient funding for the Water Power Technologies Office when we go to conference.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's advocacy for the Advanced Manufacturing Office within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account.

The Advanced Manufacturing Office performs research and development to improve the productivity and energy efficiency of U.S. manufacturing. This is important work, and I recognize my colleague's leadership in highlighting the office.

While I could not support using the Nuclear Waste Disposal account as an offset for the original amendment, I would appreciate my colleague's willingness to offer to withdraw this amendment. I look forward to working with my colleague as we move forward toward conference to discuss sufficient funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Office.

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

Mr. Chair, this bill includes $84 million for research and development on wind energy within the EERE account. That is more than $53 million higher than the budget request--$53 million higher than the budget request.

Research and development in the wind office was targeted to support our Nation's wind turbine testing infrastructure and advanced solutions to wind energy challenges. This is a strategic focus to lay the foundation for technological innovations that can be picked up by industry at a later stage.

While I support research and development on wind energy and recognize my colleague's advocacy for these activities, focusing funds on job training grants strays too far from the bill's strategic priorities. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and gentlewoman's passion for this.

I have to oppose the amendment at this time but look forward to working with the gentlewoman to try to address this issue as we move forward in the future.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his amendment and for his willingness to withdraw it and for the authorizer's strong support for this bill.

I recognize the House-passed authorization for the versatile neutron source is a priority of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and also of me.

I appreciate my colleague's highlighting these priorities, and I look forward to working with him as we move into conference to ensure these priorities have sufficient funding in the final legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the Science Committee for his amendment and for the authorizers' strong support for this bill. I recognize the House-passed authorizations for DOE research, infrastructure construction and facilities upgrades, and the low dose radiation research are priorities of the Science Committee.

I appreciate the chairman highlighting these priorities and I look forward to working with him as we move to conference to ensure these projects receive sufficient funding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the ranking member from New York, Nita Lowey, for yielding me this time and for the wonderful work she has done on 12 bills, and this is but the first.

I also want to thank the chair of the full committee, Congressman Frelinghuysen, whose service has been so meritorious. We miss his service on the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Committee directly, but he has moved up to greater things.

I also thank Chairman Simpson and the members of our fine subcommittee and our staff on our side of the aisle, Jaime Shimek and T.J. Loudermilk, and on the majority side, Angie Giancarlo, for their hard work on this bill under rushed circumstances.

I value the hard work that all of you have put into this bill and the dispatch with which Chair Simpson has moved through the process, including with great cordiality.

Our bill contributes to ensuring the critical availability of energy and waterway improvements for domestic stability and national security, not just for today but for the tomorrows to come.

Energy is the power that flows and drives our economy and courses through our Nation. Sometimes people even forget it is there binding our country together at the community level, connecting our Nation from coast to coast, and ensuring our superior defense posture globally.

Our Nation has made enormous strides in increasing our energy independence by developing a broad portfolio of power sources, with no bill more important than this one in reaching the strategic goal of energy independence for America's independence.

But it is not yet time to declare mission accomplished. Today, the price of oil is on the rise again, standing 50 percent higher than it was 1 year ago, due at least in part to unrest across our globe.

It is no secret that every time in recent history--and I am talking 40, 50 years--that fuel prices exceed $4 per gallon our Nation sinks into deep recession. Actually, energy can become a tourniquet that throttles economic growth, and rising fuel prices means our Nation could be headed there again.

So we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal of energy independence for American independence. Largely, thanks to the bipartisan budget agreement, the chairman has been able to provide increased funding levels to that end across much of our bill.

Turning to the water and waterway elements in our bill, all essential to human life, our bill significantly increases funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure continued forward progress in all regions of our country across all project areas, including navigation and environmental restoration. All projects are job creators and benefit future economic growth and environmental improvement.

I am grateful for the chairman's continued partnership to address the Asian carp threat to our freshwater Great Lakes ecosystem, as well as for funding to keep our Great Lakes ports open to shippers, which drive economic investment in the Great Lakes region.

And, unfortunately, while the chair has been generous in the funding of most programs, the bill cuts over $400 million in funding from this year's levels for next year for some of the highest priorities to those of us on this side of the aisle.

Let me enumerate them: energy efficiency and renewable energy, where America is making great strides and nations like China seek to blunt our lead; transformational science driven by the highest level of research in our country, the advanced research and energy we call ARPA- E; and, finally, in the third important area of nuclear nonproliferation.

Those accounts should not be cut. They all exist within the Department of Energy budget.

These programs invest in new horizons to move our country and economy forward through innovation, creating jobs along the way. Think about this: Nearly 3.2 million Americans now work in clean energy industries alone. Those are jobs that didn't exist 35 years ago. Energy means jobs, and new energy systems means economic growth.

I remain troubled by the continued unsustainable spending in the Department of Energy's weapons program. Instead of working to rein in costs, just over a month ago, the administration submitted a budget amendment to begin work on a new, low-yield ballistic missile, as proposed in the Nuclear Posture Review. I remain unconvinced this new capability will actually improve our nuclear deterrent.

We owe it to the American people to have a full discussion and debate before wandering down a path to new varieties of nuclear weapons, including security, cost, and schedule.

The bill, again, includes several unnecessary and controversial policy riders, everything related to the Waters of the United States to new language legislating an ongoing court case in the northwest. I ask my colleagues to vote no when I offer an amendment to eliminate all of them.

One of our biggest concerns is the damage this bill does to other bills. It is like musical chairs: if we succeed with our bill, then the 11 bills that follow may not have sufficient funding.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for leading us to this point. We are very proud to be the first bill on the floor this year, 2018, in the appropriations process.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my fellow Great Lakes colleague's amendment and thank him for raising the issue.

I think the Great Lakes have finally arrived at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As the gentleman knows and as I have made clear to the Corps, our Great Lakes Members and myself are very supportive of the proposal for a Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study.

The study will take an inclusive view of how to make our coastline more resilient, with an eye toward using more sustainable, green, or natural infrastructure to reduce runoff, mitigate erosion and flooding, and protect property. This approach will ultimately save money as the Corps looks to fulfill its mission in the face of changing environmental hazards.

And I have to say, over my many years of service, we finally have at the Corps not just civil engineers, we have environmental engineers. We have raised a new generation of Americans who understand the relationship between structures and the environment. It is a new day at the Corps, and nobody welcomes it more than this Member.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support Congresswoman Tsongas' amendment.

In our country today, there are 12 wind projects in various stages of development, spanning 10 States off the east, west, and Texas coasts and, of course, in the Great Lakes as well. These offshore projects alone represent over 5,000 megawatts of potential offshore development. We don't have a kilowatt to waste.

These projects can create thousands of manufacturing, construction, and supply-chain jobs across our country and drive billions of dollars of local economic investment.

We know we will need workers to do these clean energy jobs. And I can guarantee you those towers are very high. So I definitely support funding for training activities in this regard for the future.

The Department of Energy already has workforce training grants for solar, and, therefore, I would very much wish to carry over that effort as well to the Wind Power Technologies Office.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentlewoman for offering this important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that, if one looks at the fine print in our bill, the account, actually, for fossil is increased by over $50 million over the current year. That is a pretty healthy increase.

We are not really cutting anything in that bill if we take the funds that you are offering here. Fossil will still see a $30 million increase over this year. It isn't being cut to the bones or anything like that. In fact, we are adding flesh to the bones of the fossil accounts.

I think it is important to support the Beyer-Eshoo-Esty proposal here in this amendment because we are creating the future with ARPA-E. Nobody knows what ARPA-E means in the average neighborhood of our country. It really is not just the moonshot; it is the Mars-shot. It is the highest level of energy research we do.

When I saw Members from Massachusetts down on the floor here a little earlier, I thought to myself: When I saw the Russian tanker come in last year with natural gas because parts of the East Coast couldn't heat their homes in the wintertime, I have to tell you, I am worried. Every American should be worried.

We should be developing energy on many fronts. An all-of-the-above strategy is exactly what this country should be doing. We shouldn't be peeling away funds for the highest level of research that we do in our Nation.

Truly, ARPA-E helps us become a global leader. It is transformational in what it does. It is a model for others to imitate. It is smart, it is agile, it is fast-acting, it is nonbureaucratic, and it is bold-- qualities that both Republicans and Democrats like.

Last year, actually, many Republican officials and business leaders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said ARPA-E is a blueprint for smart Federal investments that boost our global competitiveness. And surely it does, because I can remember a time when America was not running its way to energy independence. It was, in fact, completely dependent on imported sources of energy.

ARPA-E has been nothing short of remarkable. One hundred and thirty- six projects have attracted over $2.6 billion in private sector follow- on funding. I repeat: private sector.

While I do support fossil--and Ohio is a State right now where we have a lot of coal, we have a lot of natural gas. We even have some oil being brought up with the natural gas. I support all that. But we know one thing about

that: it is finite. It is not going to be there for future generations.

ARPA-E leads us into a new future, and this amendment moves us in the proper direction.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Beyer-Eshoo-Esty amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support my good colleague, Congressman Keating, and his amendment dealing with spent nuclear fuel.

We need a solution all across our country to spent nuclear fuel stored on dozens and dozens of sites across our country.

We thought we had a solution. $14 billion has been invested in the Yucca Mountain facility, and yet because of opposition from those who were not consulted in Nevada before that site was constructed, our Nation has been at a standstill. So I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing up this issue.

Northern Ohio, a vast region that I and other Ohio Members represent, has more than one nuclear power plant that is faced with spent nuclear fuel onsite.

We know that the Department of Energy is doing tremendous work in this arena, very fine work, but we simply can't continue to just keep talking about this. We actually have to begin to store fuel in a much safer way.

This amendment would build on the work that DOE has been doing to continue to invest in such a critically important area as spent nuclear fuel and its permanent storage.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Keating amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct the Army Corps to consider the historic and national significance of dredging projects as the Corps makes its funding decisions.

In my area, this amendment will provide much-needed support for the completion of the Plymouth Harbor dredging project in time for the celebrations of the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower landing in Plymouth and Provincetown, Massachusetts.

The year 2020 will be a momentous year for our country, as we commemorate the 400th anniversary of the settlement at Plymouth by the Pilgrims, the vital contributions of the Aquinnah and Mashpee Wampanoag Tribes, and the significant events that followed, including the signing of the Mayflower Compact, the 50-year Pilgrim-Wampanoag peace treaty, and, of course, the first Thanksgiving.

For my entire time in Congress, I have worked closely with my constituents to prepare for this commemoration of Plymouth 400. The Plymouth Harbor dredging project has always been at the heart of these preparations.

The dredging project is required ahead of the return to Plymouth of the fully restored Mayflower II, a full-scale replica of the original ship that brought the Pilgrims to Cape Cod in 1620. The Mayflower II cannot return to her home in Plymouth Harbor unless much-needed dredging work is completed.

We also anticipate a maritime salute to mark the return of the Mayflower II as part of the commemoration, and the flotilla will need safe passage in the harbor.

Furthermore, an uptick in marine traffic is also expected as Americans and visitors from around the world travel to Plymouth to participate in the 2020 celebration. It is therefore critical for navigational safety concerns that this dredging occur.

This amendment will help ensure that one of the final pieces of the 2020 commemoration is completed and in place. We anticipate an exceedingly memorable year for the people of our community, for visitors across the country, and for a significant number of international visitors as well.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to the completion of this project ahead of the commemoration, which also, it is important to note, will bring in significant added revenue and jobs.

I thank the chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and staff for their cooperation. And I also invite them to come to Plymouth in 2020 and enjoy what will be an amazing international celebration and a celebration of the beginning of our country as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to provide adequate resources for the marine and hydrokinetic energy resource supported by the Department of Energy's Water Power Technologies Office.

Renewable power offers exciting and important security opportunities for our energy future here in the United States. My amendment would allocate resources to support these efforts, including for the development of pilot project plans, development of prototype turbines and associated undersea cables, as well as environmental impact assessments.

In my district, there is an important research already underway in marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies to tap the power of ocean waves, tides, and currents to generate electricity.

For example, the Marine Energy Renewable Collaborative of New England created the first permanent tidal power testing station in the entire United States. This state-of-the-art testing station is collecting new and valuable data every day on tidal power. Companies like MERCO in Marion, Massachusetts, and Littoral Power in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, are also pursuing this cutting-edge science in this emerging field of energy projection.

Southeastern Massachusetts is a leader in the maritime economy. The research and technologies being developed currently will enhance our energy security for the future. We must make these investments today to ensure our security, health, and economic competitiveness going forward.

The power supplied by these marine and hydrokinetic technologies is clean, predictable, and domestic. These technologies are environmentally friendly and don't rely on the importation of energy from foreign sources. They give us even more flexibility to keep our energy prices low for families and businesses. Cheaper energy means keeping business operating costs low so they can invest in more employees and on products and research.

Supporting research in these technologies also means investigating the potential positive and negative effects that they might hold. We need to know more about water quality, our cultural and historic sites, our electromagnetic devices, and our shellfish, fish stocks, marine habitats, and large mammals.

This is a very important program for my region and for the country. I thank my colleagues.

I will say, this is so technologically advanced, this is a real tongue twister as I have gone through this whole thing, but don't let that dissuade anyone going forward. This is the future. This is where economic growth is already occurring in our region. We should do everything in our power to help the development of this power.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Simpson for that opportunity to work together. I think we can work together going forward in the short term. Perhaps as this goes to conference, we can look at working together in the long-term and really investigating the importance of this new energy that can be developed here in the United States so cleanly.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are people in our country who are looking for jobs. We also have in our country jobs that are looking for people. So this matches that up.

Research and development is important, but without people to be trained to go forward it will come to no avail in our country. It is important for our region; it is important for our country.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Simpson for yielding me additional time. This gives me a brief time to tell how it is important in my region as well as how real it is in our region.

In my district, a major offshore wind project just got the green light to build an 800-megawatt wind farm 15 miles south of Martha's Vineyard. It is going to bring with it hundreds and hundreds of new, high-quality job opportunities in southeastern Massachusetts.

This requires skilled labor, and the amendment would try to connect those workers with these skills and the training they need to take advantage of these opportunities to these new jobs.

This is something that has to be done ahead of time in our country. One of the biggest weaknesses we do have, I think, economically, is that we have to prepare for the jobs that are here that we don't have people for and the jobs that will grow that we don't have enough people for. It is an opportunity to do this.

I thank the chairman again for yielding the time, and I thank the leadership of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment allocates resources for additional research into innovative technologies and processes for safe and secure storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear reactors.

Five nuclear power plants have retired since 2013. Six more across the country, including the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in my district, are slated to retire just in the next few years.

This is also timely, because just last month, this House passed, by a margin of 340-72, a bill to improve nuclear waste storage.

Reactors can shut down, but that doesn't mean there is a safe, secure plan for spent fuel stored onsite.

Pilgrim has been operating for over 45 years in Massachusetts, and its spent fuel has been stored there ever since.

The Pilgrim Plant is slated to retire in 2019, almost exactly 1 year from today. The spent fuel there needs to be addressed. My community in Plymouth and those around the country are asking legitimate questions on how the safety and security of these materials can be increased.

We have an opportunity to dig deeper into these questions and find better answers for my constituents and for people around the country who have a nuclear power plant nearby.

New advanced research should examine how the safety and security of spent fuel pools can be improved.

Additionally, the safe transfer of materials to dry casks deserves to be reexamined, as does the design and long-term integrity of dry casks. Furthermore, research into the transportation and ultimate disposal of spent fuel is crucial in identifying the best and safest long-term solutions. They too need to be examined and improved.

My amendment supports further research into these areas so that when nuclear energy is part of our communities, we are able to ensure, as best we can, that spent nuclear fuel is secure and not posing unnecessary threats.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this amendment and urge their support.

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

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

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 5895, the first set of the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills: Energy and Water, the Legislative Branch, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.

I am pleased that the House is considering three appropriations bills this afternoon. These bills provide funding to rebuild our military infrastructure, support military families, improve nuclear security, support our Nation's energy and water infrastructure, and assure the smooth and safe operations of the legislative branch.

To highlight a few of these important investments:

The Energy and Water bill, under Chairman Simpson's direction, funds our national security and supports the energy and water infrastructure that keeps our economy moving and America open for business.

In total, his bill provides $44.7 billion in discretionary funding. To support a strong nuclear national security strategy, particularly at this time of rapidly shifting global dynamics, his bill provides targeted increases that will maintain an effective nuclear arsenal, preserve our Nation's nuclear-powered fleet, and keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who would misuse them.

Beyond these critical responsibilities, the bill also directs $7.28 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers for projects and activities that will improve America's ports and waterways and promote public health and safety.

The bill also further supports economic growth by investing in the Department of Energy's programs to advance the goal of an all-of-the- above solution to energy independence. This includes funding to continue congressional efforts for the safe, secure storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

Next, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill under Chairman Yoder's lead provides $3.8 billion in funding for the operation of Congress and its support agencies, excluding Senate-only items. It may be the smallest of the 12 appropriations bills, but it is very important to the operation of our great democracy.

This total represents a small increase above current enacted levels. These increases are directed to critical programs that make our Capitol complex more secure and more efficient. This includes supporting our wonderful and dedicated Capitol Police force, which keeps the complex safe for Members and visitors.

Lastly, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, led initially by former Chairman Dent and now by Chairman Judge Carter, provides a total of $96.9 billion in discretionary funding at a crucial time for our Armed Forces and the VA. This includes $11.3 billion for military construction projects, a 3.8 percent increase above fiscal year 2018 levels, recognizing the need to rebuild our military infrastructure. This funding will enable our troops to fight current and emerging threats around the globe, as well as provide them with peace of mind and care for their families.

This bill also includes $85.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest total amount for the VA in its history. These additional funds will be directed to critical priorities within the Veterans Administration: improved access to healthcare; quicker claims processing; and support for crucial health programs like suicide prevention, mental health, and opioid abuse prevention. This also includes $1.2 billion for the new VA Electronic Health Record system to accelerate the progress on this long-awaited project.

Accompanying these funding increases are strong oversight provisions that will increase accountability at both the Pentagon and the Veterans Administration and ensure that precious tax dollars go where they are most needed.

I want to thank the chairs and ranking members and all the staff who worked on these bills that all Members should be proud to support.

These bills received bipartisan support in committee because they focus on universal priorities: national security, care for our veterans and military families, and essential infrastructure.

I am extremely disappointed to read and hear the minority has directed its Members to oppose this appropriations package, despite the fact that all of these bills were constructed as they always have been: in a bipartisan manner. If there is no minority support for this package, those Members will be turning their backs on this House's historic support for our veterans and their families and for modernizing our military installations around the world, which include medical facilities, new barracks and mess halls, playgrounds, schools, and family housing.

I want to thank Chairman Simpson, Chairman Yoder, former Chairman

Dent and now Chairman Judge Carter for their leadership on these bills; and also Ranking Member Kaptur, Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Tim Ryan from Ohio for their work on these bills.

I would also like to thank the hardworking staff who helped to bring the bills to the floor: Jenny Panone and Tim Monahan from the Legislative Branch Subcommittee; Sue Quantius, Sarah Young, Kiya Batmanglidj, and Tracey Russell from the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee; Angie Giancarlo, Loraine Heckenberg, Perry Yates, and Amy Murphy from the Energy and Water Subcommittee; along with the front office staff and my personal staff.

I urge my colleagues to support these responsible appropriations bills and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5895.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070618.013

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the new chairman of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies on Appropriations, and I also thank him for his leadership and work on the Homeland Security Subcommittee as well.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and thank him for getting through such a successful markup of 5 hours yesterday afternoon. Actually, I thank all members for their perseverance in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), a valuable member of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a new member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a great member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), chairman of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to urge Members to vote for this three-bill package. I know that both Members of the majority and minority have worked hard on those bills. I think it is important we deliver this package for the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to preserve our current Clean Water Act protections over our rivers, streams, and wetlands.

Our Nation's river system and wetlands provide values that no other ecosystem can: natural water quality improvement; flood protection; shoreline erosion control; recreation; general aesthetic appreciation; and national products for our use at no cost.

Yet section 107 of this bill seeks to undermine protection of streams and wetlands and the critical balance between protecting these waters and the day-to-day operations of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and foresters.

Under current law, farmers, ranchers, and foresters can carry out their normal operations in any water body without requiring a Clean Water Act permit. What this means is that farmers can continue to plow their fields--including potential wet areas that have been farmed for decades--plant their seeds, and harvest their crops without ever having to obtain approval under the Clean Water Act.

Any normal farming, ranching, or forestry exemption is going to include

minor limitations. For example, a farmer cannot use the current exemption to convert his farmland to a residential development without obtaining a permit; a rancher can't use this exemption to plow under a wetland to expand his grazing lands; and forestry operations can't use this exemption to change the course of a local stream to improve drainage on their growing lands.

In short, the way the Clean Water Act currently operates is to allow normal ranching, farming, and forestry operations to continue without a permit unless the activity either changes or converts the use of a water body to a new purpose or impairs the historic flow or reach of a stream or wetland. If the planned activity triggers either of these limitations, current law obviously would require that activity to obtain a permit.

Section 107 of this bill, in essence, would provide an absolute Clean Water Act exemption for impacts to any streams or wetlands that happen to be on agricultural, ranching, or forestry lands.

Mr. Chairman, this is a fundamental change to the Clean Water Act, and it is one where the impacts have never been explored. This amendment would be a significant departure from almost 40 years of implementation of the Clean Water Act by Democrats and Republicans by eliminating the existing provision requiring that the exemptions apply only to normal--as in established, ongoing--farming practices.

Mr. Chairman, we should not be using an appropriations bill to change Federal policy related to the protection of our Nation's rivers and streams. To the best of my knowledge, no hearings or investigations on the impacts of this provision have ever been held.

If this Congress is interested in overturning almost 40 years of Clean Water Act precedent, regular order would require hearings before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and approval by that committee before consideration on the floor.

This rider is bad policy for the protection of our environment, bad policy for the protection of human health, and bad policy for the protection of public safety.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself confused by the comments of my distinguished friend from California. Nothing has changed in the law in 40 years. This law has been applied under Democratic and Republican Presidents and administrations.

The law is very clear that any normal farming use, forestry, agriculture or ranching is exempt already. It is only a wholesale shift from what the farm's original exemption was intended for that would require a Clean Water Act permit.

So if a farmer is, in fact, going to turn out and develop houses, a subdivision, you need a clean water permit. But there is nothing in there that says you need a clean water permit to plow, to plant, or to use the land as it has always been used.

My fear is that I don't know of any specific instances where there has been an overinterpretation of existing law, but section 107 would basically throw out the entire baby in order to fix an overinterpretation problem by one or two agents of the Department of Agriculture.

Essentially, section 107 says everything is accepted under the Clean Water Act if it is agriculture, forestry, or ranching on that land.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I respect the concern about an overinterpretation of existing law that has been on the books for 40 years. The real challenge with section 107 is it throws out the entire exemption process and makes everything legal.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Beyer-Eshoo-Esty amendment simply restores funding to the Advanced Research Project-Energy, ARPA-E, to the FY18 enacted level that was already approved by this Congress earlier this year.

ARPA-E was created to replicate the successful DARPA model by incentivizing researchers to develop promising research into game- changing technologies that can meet our future energy needs.

Mr. Chairman, despite the huge payoff, the private sector does not often and cannot invest efficiently in kind of high-risk, high-reward energy research. ARPA-E has already demonstrated incredible success in advancing energy technology solutions that neither the public nor the private sector has been willing or able to support in the past.

Since 2009, 136 of these projects have attracted more than $2.6 billion in private sector follow-on funding.

And please note, the amendment does not cut fossil energy research. It simply reduces the plus-up for the account. The Fossil Energy R&D will still receive $30 million more than last year and 50 percent more than President Trump's FY19 request level.

I urge my colleagues to support the Beyer-Eshoo-Esty amendment to make ARPA-E whole. ARPA-E is a smart bet on America's proven ability to turn creative ideas into market-creating, job-growing businesses.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is virtually nothing my friend from West Virginia said that I disagree with, except the idea that we are somehow taking money from fossil fuel research that is untoward. Just remember, this is a $30 million step up from last year and 50 percent more than President Trump has even asked for.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I simply add that we are not cutting the fossil fuel research and development, which we do believe in. This is a plus-up from last year of at least $30 million and 50 percent more than President Trump has requested.

All we are simply doing is trying to appropriate to ARPA-E what was enacted by this Congress and, also, to point out that ARPA-E does not exclude fossil fuel research.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.