Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Waxman for yielding the time.

Colleagues, we are dealing with a bill here, H.R. 1900, that relates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

FERC is an independent agency that reviews electric transmission lines that go across States, interstate electric transmission lines. They also review interstate oil pipelines, and they also review the interstate natural gas pipelines. This is a very important subject.

Now, this bill relates only to the natural gas pipeline authority of FERC. The country right now is in a natural gas revolution. It has been remarkable. The United States is now a net exporter of petroleum. This has happened very quickly, and FERC has responded very well over time on the expansion of the natural gas market. That is why it is so confounding as to why we need this new bill that is going to short- circuit FERC's review power.

Right now, FERC grants over 90 percent of the interstate natural gas pipelines across the country. This bill really is an unnecessary piece of legislation in search of a problem. In committee, the bill was panned by the FERC professional staff. The administration strongly opposes it.

Instead of expediting expansion of natural gas pipelines across the country, it would disrupt FERC's natural gas permitting process which, right now, is already getting thousands of miles of pipelines permitted in a timely manner, like I said, over 90 percent of the applications.

Instead, the bill establishes arbitrary and inflexible deadlines for FERC and other agencies to issue permits; and there are several major problems with the bill, particularly short-circuiting the permitting process for the most complex projects.

The bill says we have a 12-month deadline, no matter what kind of project is proposed. FERC currently decides 90 percent of the permit applications within that 12-month period; and in July, the Pipeline Trade Association testified that FERC's existing permitting process is generally very good.

Second, in addition to this arbitrary 12-month deadline for all applications, it would rush environmental reviews for complex projects. The bill's rigid deadline applies to every pipeline project, regardless of complexity.

It doesn't make sense to apply the same 12-month deadline to, say, a 30-mile interstate pipeline that doesn't cross any rivers, doesn't have environmental concerns, doesn't go through population areas, and then apply the same 12-month deadline to the most complex, multi-state, interstate pipeline initiative that goes across environmentally- sensitive areas, maybe across rivers, through highly populated areas.

Third, the bill also will lead to unnecessary permit denial. What we heard from FERC is that, instead of speeding up the permitting process for natural gas pipelines, it is very likely that this bill will slow down permitting. If FERC can't finish its analysis by the required deadline, they may have no choice but to deny an application that otherwise could have been granted.

Now, before I came to Congress, I practiced environmental law, and what I learned during that time is for those complex projects there is a lot of give and take that needs to happen. You have to discuss mitigation. You have to discuss are there any alternatives.

Oftentimes, these business owners, it is in their interest to have a little more time to figure out the right path for a pipeline or a transmission line or something like that. You get input from local governments, local communities, neighborhood associations, environmental groups; and you wind up with a better project.

I thank the gentleman.

Another serious problem with the bill is that it transforms FERC into a super-permitting agency. Now that sounds pretty scary, but that is what it does.

It says that the bill provides for permits to automatically go into effect if an agency does not approve or deny them by the bill's arbitrary 90-day deadline. So FERC would be issuing Clean Air Act permits, Clean Water Act permits, even BLM right-of-way through Federal land permits.

These are functions that FERC does not have the expertise or resources to carry out. This is an unworkable provision that could result in permits being issued that are inconsistent with the Nation's environmental laws.

Finally, I know many people on both sides of the aisle are very concerned about eminent domain and when we give power to government to condemn lands. Well, here is a reminder for everyone. We should all remember that when FERC issues a certificate of public convenience and necessity, it gives a pipeline company the power of eminent domain. The power to take someone's property should not be conferred without FERC taking the time it needs for a thorough analysis and thoughtful decisionmaking.

So for all of those reasons, I urge opposition to the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 1900, if an agency cannot complete its review of a gas pipeline permit application by the bill's arbitrary 90-day or, in some cases, 120-day deadline, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is required to automatically issue the permit.

This permitting provision broadly applies to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and rights-of-way through Federal lands.

It simply goes too far, is completely unreasonable, and it runs counter to the author's intent. The intent of the author is to speed the approval of interstate natural gas pipelines. Instead, what this provision will do, if my amendment is not adopted, is create greater delays and, I believe, greater likelihood of litigation that will delay our important natural gas infrastructure in this country.

So my amendment is straightforward. It simply strikes this provision that requires FERC to automatically issue other agencies' permits.

You heard Mr. Waxman say--and I said the same thing--that what this bill does is turns FERC, whose jurisdiction is limited to reviewing interstate electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and oil pipelines, into a superpermitting agency. It goes and grabs EPA's jurisdiction and authority, the Interior Department's, the Army Corps of Engineers', and other agencies', and settles into FERC this superpermitting authority that really is completely unreasonable.

Right now, these permits are typically detailed documents that include safety requirements, emission limits, technology and operator requirements, and conditions to ensure that communities are protected and the water, wetlands, and other environmental resources are considered, especially when you have a complex interstate natural gas pipeline coming through your communities.

Agencies need the ability and time to analyze all of these details and then draft appropriate permit conditions to protect our communities back home, protect the health and safety, protect landowner rights, and propose cleanup requirements in case there is an accident.

Under H.R. 1900, FERC acts as a superpermitting agency. If an agency cannot meet the strict deadlines, FERC apparently will write and issue the permit itself. This is a recipe for natural gas pipeline delays, and that is why so many are fearful of the consequences of this bill. After all, FERC now already grants 90 percent of the natural gas interstate pipeline applications that come before it.

So it makes no sense to have FERC issuing permits for other agencies. FERC doesn't have the expertise to grant land management rights-of-way through Federal land or to set water pollution discharge limits. That is not a workable solution. It is a recipe for greater litigation and delay.

Besides litigation, delays, and other complications, there are going to be real environmental and safety impacts if permits automatically go into effect without the responsible agencies completing the necessary analysis. It could result in permits being issued that are inconsistent with the requirements of the Nation's environmental laws. That is why the Pipeline Safety Trust and numerous environmental organizations strongly oppose the bill.

The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA also express concern that automatic permitting could lead to permits that do not meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. This could result in harmful water pollution and air pollution.

So in addition to delays, lawsuits, and environmental harm, automatically issuing permits without an agency confirming the legal requirements is going to undermine the public's acceptance of interstate natural gas pipelines going through our communities. That is the last thing you want to happen.

We are undergoing a national gas revolution in this country that, generally, is very positive. So why would you try to pass this bill that would lead to greater litigation delays, uncertainty, and that the industry itself says may not be necessary?

Agencies should act expeditiously on pipeline applications, but they also need time to conduct the necessary environmental and safety reviews. In some cases, it will take longer than a 90- or 120-day environmental review. Some of these pipelines are very complex and they go over hundreds of miles through environmentally, sensitive areas. People need time and the businesses need time to work through the conditions.

So we should not sacrifice these protections when the pipeline permitting process is already working well, nor should we take critical health, safety, and environmental functions away from the agencies.

My amendment doesn't fix all the problems, but it eliminates an unworkable provision. If you do not want to complicate the interstate natural gas pipeline process that the industry says is generally very good, then I urge you to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of an outstanding leader of the Tampa Bay community, Dottie Berger MacKinnon. Her tireless crusade to better the lives of neglected and abused children is an inspiration to the Tampa Bay community and to this great nation.

Among Mrs. Berger MacKinnon's numerous accomplishments is her work in founding charities that support needy children. In 1992, Mrs. Berger MacKinnon led a community effort to found Joshua House, a kid's shelter in the Tampa Bay area which now handles children ages 7 to 17 who have been removed from their homes. Never tiring of making a positive difference, Mrs. Berger MacKinnon worked to found Kid's Charity of Tampa Bay in 2006. Kid's Charity also manages A Kid's Place, a 60-bed emergency shelter for children waiting to be placed with a foster family. Mrs. Berger MacKinnon's visionary leadership resulted in raising $5 million for A Kid's Place to build an amazing facility that now has helped more than 700 abused, abandoned and neglected children.

A native of Kentucky, Berger MacKinnon had an early passion for politics that led her to move at age 15 to live with an aunt on the outskirts of Washington. She later moved to Tampa where she earned a B.A. in political science in 1984 from the University of South Florida. She joined the Gulf Coast Division for the Children's Home Society of Florida in 1985 where she served as one of its State Board members.

Mrs. Berger MacKinnon won a seat on the Hillsborough County Commission in 1994 and went on to become chairman from 1996 to 1997. On the Commission, she continued to fight for abused and neglected children. Mrs. Berger MacKinnon served on the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, as well as three terms on Tampa General Hospital's governing board. Here, she was instrumental in its transformation into a not-for-profit institution. Mrs. Berger MacKinnon was inducted into the Hillsborough County Women's Hall of Fame earlier this year.

Mrs. Berger MacKinnon was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1999 and unfortunately passed away this October. Through her brave battle with cancer, Mrs. Berger MacKinnon was an inspiration to others who are fighting this devastating disease. To carry on her tenacious spirit and honor her legacy, I introduced the Eliminating Disparities in Breast Cancer Treatment Act. This Act will help ensure greater access to cancer treatment for women across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, today on behalf of the many people who have been inspired by her diligent efforts and for the thousands of children whose lives are forever bettered by her never-ending generosity, we salute and thank Dottie Berger MacKinnon.

I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding the time and for her dedication to the Nation's veterans as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of designating the Bay Pines VA Medical Center in Pinellas County, Florida, the Congressman C.W. Bill Young VA Medical Center. I am very proud to cosponsor this bill, and I would like to thank Chairman Miller of Florida, Congresswoman Brown, and all of our colleagues for honoring Bill Young with such a designation.

I have been fortunate to serve alongside Bill Young for the 7 years that I have been here. Seven out of the 43 years that Mr. Young served in the Congress, we represented St. Petersburg and the Tampa Bay area together. And I know I speak for my predecessors, Jim Davis and Sam Gibbons, who also passed last year, when I say that Congressman Bill Young was a

gentleman and an outstanding partner for the interests of the Tampa Bay area and the State of Florida.

It is very appropriate that we honor Bill Young by naming the Bay Pines VA Medical Center after him. He was a fixture at the Bay Pines Veterans Day and Memorial Day ceremonies every year. But more importantly, he was a fixture when there was no ceremony, when he would visit wounded soldiers in the hospital or at their homes, when there was no fanfare, and he just determined that it was just his desire to ensure that the servicemembers and their families received the care that they deserved and that they had earned.

Many facilities at the MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa are state of the art due to Mr. Young's extra attention. I am very grateful for the help he provided to me when MacDill and the soldiers and civilians who worked there were in need. For example, in the past year, he boosted our efforts in ``MacDill Means Mobility'' when we tried to expand the mission at the base. When I brought to his attention that the Department of Defense was not assisting former servicemembers and their families who qualified for Medicaid health services, he helped cut through the red tape.

Many also will point to his expansive earmarks and great legacy in the Tampa Bay area in a variety of ways: our drinking water reservoir is the Bill Young Reservoir; medical research initiatives at the University of South Florida; programs at St. Petersburg College; programs at Eckerd College. We are so proud that Mr. Young initiated the national bone marrow donor program at All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg.

It was decades ago, through Congressman Young's leadership, that the Bay Pines VA Medical Center in St. Petersburg was created. Bay Pines is now the fourth-largest veterans hospital in the country. It serves veterans all across west central Florida and employs many talented caregivers.

So it is a fitting tribute to this remarkable American to name the Bay Pines VA Medical Center in his honor, and I am proud to cosponsor the resolution. Congressman Young was a model statesman. His kindness, sincerity, and dogged advocacy for our Nation's men and women in uniform and veterans will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, one of the harsh impacts of the Republican government shutdown is the fact that military families of our fallen heroes will no longer receive survivor benefits. They have been suspended.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, 8,000 miles away in Afghanistan, four Army Rangers were killed and 30 others were wounded by a suicide bomber and an IED. That's why I urge the approval today of legislation on the floor to provide the death benefits to our fallen soldiers.

But I'd also like to salute a Tampa, Florida, foundation, the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, that has stepped forward to fill the void and will provide four very generous grants to the families of our brave soldiers killed in action.

They typically provide scholarships and financial aid and counseling to the families of Special Operations soldiers, and I'd like to thank them: Retired Air Force Major Steve McLeary, Retired General Doug Brown, Retired Vice Admiral Joe Maguire, Melinda Scofield and Dahlia Munoz, and the entire board of directors, and the greater community of the Tampa Bay area that supports Special Operations Command and all of our brave heroes.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican shutdown is a disaster for families across America and this great country, and we are not fooled by this political gimmick on the floor today. It is a gimmick; it is a gimmick; it is a gimmick.

The Republican position in this Congress, as demonstrated in their budget, has been to slash support for Head Start students. I know this; Head Start parents know this; Head Start teachers know this; and our communities back home know it all too well. In fact, in the House Budget Committee just this past March, Democrats offered an amendment to eliminate the severe Republican cuts to education and Head Start students and to stop the layoffs of teachers. Republicans scoffed, just like they are scoffing at their basic responsibility to negotiate and pass a budget and keep government working.

Mr. Speaker, when you shut down Head Start classrooms, did you know that the parents of these students may not be able to go to work or keep their jobs? That is not smart. Head Start keeps parents working or studying for their own degree so they can move out of poverty into the middle class.

So I urge Speaker Boehner to bring a clean bill to the floor that funds the U.S. Government, not these political gimmicks.

Enough of the gimmicks. We know we have 200 Democrats ready to support a clean CR and at least 20 or so Republicans. End these political gimmicks. Fund the government. End this calamity for American families.

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of 1,500 of my neighbors in Tampa who have been furloughed at MacDill Air Force Base due to the GOP government shutdown. They were laid off on Tuesday, and they will not be paid.

I'm very proud of my community. The banks, credit unions, and the Tampa Bay Partnership are coming together to ensure they have bridge loans so the families stay afloat. But it should have not come to this. It is so irresponsible for the GOP to shut down the government because they disagree with a duly enacted law.

I also rise on behalf of small businesses in my community. They are stymied from their expansion plans because the GOP has shut down the Small Business Administration. They want to buy equipment or get working capital, but the Republicans have shut them down.

I rise on behalf of the veterans in my community that were waiting for disability benefits; but due to the shutdown, they're going to have to wait longer.

And I rise on behalf of mothers, infants, and families all across this country in opposition to the Republicans' continued slashing of the basic sustenance that they need to keep going. This is not consistent with our American values.

This dysfunction is irresponsible, and it's causing real pain. I urge my colleagues to set aside the political gimmicks, allow a vote on the bill that will get people back to work, and end this GOP shutdown before it causes greater pain.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 73 which is a political gimmick designed to distract attention from the great harm being caused by the GOP government shutdown and Republican budget policies.

When you consider what makes America ``great'', you may think of the America's public schools where every child, rich or poor, can get an education unlike other countries. You may think of our civil liberties. You may think of the architectural wonders like the Sunshine Skyway Bridge across Tampa Bay.

I am inspired by the talented young researchers across America who are searching to find the cure for cancer or study treatments for Alzheimer's or advance the artificial pancreas for people with diabetes.

The Republican bill on the floor today relating to the National Institutes of Health is a whitewash and a sham. Despite GOP assertions that they support NIH and research across America, the record proves otherwise.

Over the last two years Republicans in Congress have taken a fiscal hatchet to the positions of young and talented researchers in hospitals, universities and cancer centers across America. For FY13 and FY14, President Obama and Democrats proposed healthy funding for the NIH. Republicans have cut it back by almost two billion dollars each year.

Despite GOP assertions that they support research, Republicans have held firm to the sequester cuts for NIH which has led to the elimination of researchers across America. America's researchers, the scientific community, patients, doctors and all of us are not fooled by the Republican hoax here.

For example, at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, one of America's leading cancer research centers, researchers on staff have been cut from 120 to 100. This is devastating for America's ability to investigate and eliminate cancer and treat the disease. America has invested in our best and brightest young men and women in the science and math fields and the Republican budget policies are eliminating their positions, cutting back their work and ceding America's top position in medical research to China and India.

This is the same story at the University of South Florida, and the research in Alzheimer's nursing, neurology, heart disease or mental health. The budget ax employed by Congressional Republicans is hurting us all.

We have fought back. In the Budget Committee, I cosponsored an amendment last spring to restore funding to NIH and cancer research. It was defeated with all Republicans on the Committee voting no. Democrats also offered a balanced sequester replacement plan numerous times, but the GOP has shot it down.

With this context, it is easy to see through the House GOP's ploy to fund the NIH through this bill. They are not beefing up funding levels. They lock in the devastating sequester and thereby lay off more researchers and put diagnoses and treatments further out of reach. The cumulative impacts of year-after-year cuts in research erodes America's status as the world leader in scientific research.

The American people are not fooled by the political games of my Republican colleagues.

And let's not forget that this Republican government shutdown has lead to the NIH turning away new patients from clinical trials--in particular children. Grant applications will not be considered. And the NIH will stop answering hotline calls from our constituents with medical questions.

The legislation we will be debating today is a ruse. It won't work.

Let's stop playing games, and end the irresponsible Republican shutdown. Then, rather than the empty rhetoric relating to scientific research, commit yourself to making America great rather than tearing it down.

Mr. Speaker, when the American Government shuts down early next week, it will be plain that the Republicans in Congress are responsible. Unfortunately, it will be our neighbors back home and small businesses back home that will have to deal with the consequences.

When the Tea Party Republicans pushed the country towards default previously, they caused real economic damage. America's credit rating was downgraded, and their previous government shutdown cost American taxpayers over $2 billion. Now they're back for more, and they appear quite willing to cause significant economic damage again.

There is more to this story. Over the past few months, while our neighbors back home have been working hard at their jobs, getting their kids back into school, the story here in Congress has been one of dysfunction rooted in the House Republicans' inability and refusal to negotiate an overall budget for the United States with the U.S. Senate. They passed a make-believe budget proposal that was so unrealistic they could not bring themselves to come to a budget conference with the Senate.

So, without a budget, House Republicans left the country in limbo, and they embraced the severe and mindless sequester cuts as their spending strategy.

In contrast, Democrats have offered a balanced plan authored by Congressman Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, but now we are here in the eleventh hour. The Tea Party Republicans are holding the American economy hostage, and they have charted a course for job losses and real pain. The Republicans are very poor fiscal stewards for American families and businesses. They are reckless and irresponsible.

I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on their government shutdown plan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the story of Lorraine, a mother from Sarasota, Florida, and Gwendolyn Friedman, a senior citizen from Tampa, Florida, faces of hunger in America.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment moves $3 million from the executive offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the Deputy Secretary's office, to the Office of Field Policy and Management, for a very good reason. The leadership at the Department of Housing and Urban Development has failed my neighbors in Florida under its unsubstantiated plan to remove the on-the-ground, community-based personnel from our local communities and transfer these positions to a single bureaucratic behemoth.

On September 30 of this year, HUD executives plan to move our local community-based HUD professionals to other offices hundreds of miles away. Yet the housing and homeless challenges in my community will remain. Mr. Chairman, Congress was not consulted on HUD's plan. After HUD's plan was leaked, a number of Members of Congress inquired.

So what is HUD's plan? The Deputy Secretary said HUD plans to remove its representatives from the Tampa Bay and Orlando areas, a region of over 6 million Americans, larger than 30 States, and from other communities across the country. I asked HUD's Deputy Secretary, Is this a cost-saving measure? He said, No. I asked HUD's Deputy Secretary, Have you done a workforce analysis so that the HUD workforce is devoted to the areas that need help and the appropriate places at the appropriate numbers? No.

HUD executives have failed to provide any reasonable justification to Congress regarding the closing of 16 field offices, including two in Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is not appropriate to concentrate HUD personnel in offices hundreds of miles away from where they're needed. HUD is just asking for higher travel costs and an agency that will be more disconnected from communities.

Today, my amendment cuts the executive office budget of HUD by 25 percent and moves those dollars away from Washington and back to the Office of Field Policy and Management to restore some of the HUD field offices that are being shuttered in 2 months. In moving the dollars out of Washington, my intent is to directly help our homeless veterans and those on the ground working for multifamily housing, Choice Neighborhoods grants, neighborhood stabilization, Hardest Hit, housing counseling, and more.

My State and local communities cannot be served effectively under HUD's plan to stovepipe its personnel hundreds of miles away. Florida has a population of 19 million, and 1.5 million veterans live in Florida, of which about 8,000 are homeless. We have 57,000 people in Florida that are battling homelessness and our foreclosure rate is still too high. Over the last year, Florida has had the most homes-- over 103,000--foreclosed upon. California is a distant second. Nearly 9 percent of all Florida homes with mortgages were in some stage of foreclosure.

Communities throughout Tampa Bay have been hit hard by the housing crisis, and the reliable and informed HUD professionals in the Tampa Bay field office have been on the ground helping our neighbors daily. Earlier this year, more than 5,000 notices of mortgage default, foreclosure auction, or repossession were sent across Tampa Bay. Florida continues to have a very high foreclosure rate--and Tampa is no exception.

HUD professionals in my community have been there to help. They have helped us weather the economic crisis. The Tampa Bay HUD office has been critical for many of my neighbors and for community-based nonprofits working to solve the housing and homeless problems.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply says that bureaucrats in Washington will have a little bit less to ensure that our communities, including my home of Tampa, Orlando, and other communities across the country, have the professionals in the field that we need to help our neighbors, our veterans, and others with housing challenges.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Grayson, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McNerney, and Mr. Costa for joining me in cosponsoring this amendment.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Castor amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Castor of Florida

Amendment No. 13: Page 68, line 11, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

Page 68, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

Page 69, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his unceasing efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and H.R. 5 because the Republican bill fails America's students.

Mr. Speaker, America's public schools are the envy of the world. We're fortunate to live in a country that believes that every child should be educated and given the opportunity to succeed in life. Our public schools are one of the best examples of American values. No matter where a child comes from, no matter what challenges a student faces in life--a disability, autism, poverty--that student can receive a good education.

Our local public schools are largely community-based and locally run; but the Federal Government provides important support, especially for working-class communities and for students with disabilities and learning challenges. We have important work to do to continue to improve public schools and recruit good teachers; but under this bill, Republicans want to go in the other direction.

The Republican bill before the House today proposes a harsh prescription for students and families who seek better schools and talented teachers. H.R. 5 guts education funding for students and teachers by over $1 billion below last year's levels at a time when we want high-quality curricula, and States and local school districts have been challenged financially.

Back home in my Tampa Bay area district in Florida, I have over 200 title 1 schools, like Foster Elementary in Hillsborough County and Woodlawn Elementary in Pinellas County. These are students from working-class families. Over 90 percent of these students qualify for free and reduced lunch. It is the longtime compact between the Federal Government and our local schools that ensures support to these students that do not come from wealthy families. The students who attend these schools range from ones with special needs that require title 1 help to work with exceptional education teachers; English Language Learners that need a little extra help from translators; and students with severe emotional behavior disorders.

The Republican bill retreats from these students and the responsibility to education.

No Child Left Behind has been riddled with problems from the start. Its one-size-fits-all policy hasn't worked, but this Republican bill is not the answer. It's a step backward. And I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would restore funding for America's renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy conservation initiatives, restore it to the very modest levels of the last year, 2013. These relate to the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives, the Department's electricity delivery and energy reliability initiatives as well.

The problem with the Republican bill is it slashes, it eviscerates America's commitment to renewable energy and energy conservation. They also have something that I characterize, maybe a term of art, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, because they take these various accounts and squeeze them in a vise down into a single account; and when you take it all together, it is a 57 percent reduction in energy efficiency and renewable energy. This is outrageous. It is shortsighted, and it is very poor public policy.

The Republican bill slashes clean energy initiatives that are critical to the all-of-the-above energy strategy that I thought we all agreed on is needed for U.S. energy independence, ranging from solar to wind power and new technologies for more energy-efficient buildings and advanced vehicles.

So I have to say, Mr. Chairman, if I hear any of my Republican colleagues say they are for an all-of-the-above approach on energy policy, this Energy and Water appropriations bill belies that. It really pulls the curtain back on what the plan really is on the other side of the aisle.

The administration has objected, and I agree with them. They write:

The Republican bill would leave U.S. competitiveness at

risk in new markets for clean energy industries such as

advanced vehicles, advanced manufacturing, energy efficiency

for homes and businesses, and domestic renewable energies

such as wind, solar, and biomass.

They do this at a time when they are content to leave huge taxpayer subsidies going to the big oil companies, meanwhile slashing very modest investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy conservation.

Specifically, the impact of these cuts will reduce by 50 percent the homes weatherized to help our neighbors back home reduce their energy bills. And Ranking Member Kaptur was absolutely correct: those working class neighbors back home do not have big lobbyists here in Washington, D.C. This bill would also significantly delay research on next generation technologies that save energy in our homes, our schools, our hospitals, and businesses.

The Republican bill will hinder the development of cost-effective new technologies and appliance standards that save Americans money by increasing energy productivity. This bill spells a likely demise and ends solar energy job training for students and military veterans at 261 community colleges. The Republican bill will slow efforts to modernize and secure the electricity delivery grid and respond to energy emergencies.

I ask simply that we return the funding levels to the very modest levels of last year. The amendment also directs that funds be allocated in the same proportion as they were in fiscal year 2013.

These clean energy initiatives are critical to achieving energy independence, boosting our economy, creating jobs, and maintaining global leadership. Ranking Member Kaptur was absolutely right during this debate. She said we are sacrificing our future and not living up to the standards of this great country because you're slashing the investments that make this country go: investing in innovation and technology.

I'm afraid that it really highlights the broader issue, and that is the fact that the Republicans refuse to negotiate on the budget. They passed the budget 100 days ago. The Democrats have appointed conferees. I don't know what the holdup is, why my Republican colleagues are afraid to negotiate on the budget. But in the meantime, here on this amendment, we have an opportunity to stand up for jobs, for clean energy and the future of our great Nation. I ask support of the Castor amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

I appreciate that there is a point of order brought up, but I think there is a major point of order that faces this House of Representatives, and that's the fact that the Democrats have appointed conferees to negotiate the budget, and my Republican colleagues appear to be afraid to come together and discuss the budget.

Mr. Chair, at this time, I will insist upon a vote on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Offered By: Ms. Castor of Florida

Amendment No. 11: Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $1,127,954,000)''.

Page 22, line 8, before the period, insert the following:

: Provided, That the amount made available under this heading

shall be allocated between programs, projects, and activities

previously funded under the heading ``Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy'' and programs, projects, and activities

previously funded under the heading ``Electricity Delivery

and Energy Reliability'' in the same proportion as such funds

were allocated between such accounts in fiscal year 2013 by

division F of Public Law 113-6

Offered By: Ms. Castor of Florida

Amendment No. 16: Page 22, line 8, before the period,

insert the following:

: Provided, That the amount made available under this heading

shall be allocated between programs, projects, and activities

previously funded under the heading ``Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy'' and programs, projects, and activities

previously funded under the heading ``Electricity Delivery

and Energy Reliability'' in the same proportion as such funds

were allocated between such accounts for fiscal year 2013 by

division F of Public Law 113-6.