Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 5, for personal reasons, I was absent and missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall No. 655--``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 656--``Yea.''

Rollcall No. 657--``Yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Rick Ardinger, the executive director of the Idaho Humanities Council. I wish to congratulate him on his retirement after 26 years of service leading the state's efforts to promote and inspire the study of history, literature, philosophy, jurisprudence, cultural anthropology, comparative religion, art history and criticism, music history and other interpretive disciplines.

A Massachusetts native, Rick moved to Idaho to pursue a Master of Fine Arts degree in creative writing and quickly acclimated to the local writing scene. In 1976, Rick and his wife Rosalind started producing a literary publication, The Limberlost Review. The publication quickly turned into the Limberlost Press, an independent publishing company that has produced books by Pulitzer Prize winning novelist John Updike and Idaho native Sherman Alexie, among others.

Rick joined the Idaho Humanities Council staff in 1991, and became executive director in 1996. During his tenure, the IHC broadened its outreach not only by awarding grants for humanities projects and programs throughout the state, but also by sponsoring a number of flagship council-conducted initiatives to bring attention to the importance of lifelong learning in the humanities.

Under Rick's leadership, the Council also launched a successful $1 million fundraising campaign to establish an Endowment for Humanities Education with the Idaho Community Foundation, providing a sustainable source of support for the Council's annual, weeklong, residential summer institutes and workshops in the humanities for K-12 teachers. In 1997, the Council held its first annual Distinguished Humanities Lecture and Dinner in Boise, an event which has brought to Boise a long list of nationally prominent novelists, journalists, and historians to speak before hundreds of supporters every fall.

In addition to the annual event in Boise, the Council also hosts Distinguished Humanities Lectures in Twin Falls, Idaho Falls, and Coeur d'Alene. The Council also sponsors statewide reading and conversations programs, supports the work of the City Clubs of Idaho Falls and Boise, brings annual tours of Smithsonian traveling exhibitions to the state, hosts an ongoing Humanities Speakers Bureau, and funds the statewide annual ``Let's Talk About It'' program in partnership with the Idaho Commission for Libraries. For several years, the Council has underwritten Idaho Public Television programming, and has produced a number of publications that have explored Idaho history and recently an anthology of essays about the meaning of wilderness in Idaho.

As a supporter of local and national arts and humanities programs, I consider Rick a friend and an advocate for sharing Idaho's cultural significance with the world. It's hard to imagine the Idaho Humanities Council without Rick, but I know he leaves the organization in a good place. For his enduring service to our great state, I thank and congratulate him.

Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 604 I was absent on account of personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of several constituents in my district who have taken it upon themselves to improve their health and wellness by incorporating exercise and a balanced diet into their daily routine.

Last year, my staff and I created the Idaho STEP Challenge. The goal of the challenge was to encourage residents from across the state of Idaho to get fit and healthy by walking virtually across the United States, while collecting data on a wearable activity tracker and pedometer. Beginning on June 1, 2016, a group of more than 300 residents and several workplace teams set out on the virtual walk across the United States starting at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. and arriving at the Idaho Statehouse in Boise, Idaho more than a year later.

The nearly 3,000 mile route took participants through 18 iconic American cities, national parks, and spacious heartlands. The event was documented on social media under the #hikewithMike hashtag, and through regular email newsletters sent to participants. Residents also shared their encouraging weight loss and fitness stories online, and uploaded their mileage counts to a special section of my website. The event was devised to be a non-partisan, non-political interactive event open to all Idaho residents.

The Idaho STEP Challenge officially concluded on October 23, 2017. Those who participated demonstrated their commitment to healthy living and a spirited stand for fitness within our state. I would like to acknowledge the following participants for joining me on the virtual road to Boise and I thank them for promoting healthy lifestyles in our community.

Nick Abshire, Jeff Daniels, Kathy Parks, Lisa Lane, Susan Littlefield, Miranda Collins, Jeannette Barnes, Jessica Padour, Suelynn Williams, Pat Mills, Kellie Gough, Carolyn Simpson, Maryl Fisher, Penny Handley, Fred Hughes, Carolee McKenzie, Patrick Kole, Dana Flatter, Miranda Smith Collins, Bart & Julie Harwood, Gerald Simpson, Wendy Jaquet, Celia R. Gould, Sheila Woods, Gina Martin, Ray Simpson, Jan Simpson Rhoades, Dennis & Sheila Conley, Toni Orth, Ron Fisher, Connie Pond, Angela Degni, Sheila Ames, Elizabeth Criner, Elain M. & James Long, Glen Tait, Cheryl Hardy, Shelby C. Sommer, Judy Slayton.

Once again, thanks to all the participants in the Idaho STEP Challenge and I congratulate them on their commitment to a better Idaho.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Major General Gary L. Sayler, an extraordinary leader with 45 years of selfless service, appreciative leadership, constructive mentorship, and exceptional meritorious service.

Born and raised in North Dakota, Major General Sayler entered the ROTC program at North Dakota State University, graduating in 1971 with a Bachelor of Science degree in history and a commission as a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force.

He entered undergraduate navigator training at Mather Air Force Base, California, in June 1971. As a second lieutenant, he received F-4 weapons system formal training at George Air Force Base, California, graduating in December 1972. He immediately deployed to Vietnam as a squadron weapons systems officer at Udom Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. In November 1973, he was assigned as a squadron weapons systems officer at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. While assigned at Holloman, he met his future wife, Shari, who was also serving at Holloman as a Nurse.

Major General Sayler joined the Idaho Air National Guard in 1977 where he has served in numerous positions of increasing responsibility and command until he was designated the Fighter Wing Commander. Upon promotion to Brigadier General in 2004, he was assigned as the Assistant Adjutant General and Commander of the Idaho Air National Guard. In January 2010, Governor Otter appointed him to serve as the Adjutant General and Commanding General of the Idaho National Guard.

Major General Sayler's service to Idaho as the Adjutant General has been extraordinary. The forceful guidance, as well as-outstanding and dedicated efforts of General Sayler are significantly displayed by the strategic direction of all National Guard forces and emergency managers in the State of Idaho. He led the organization through weapons platform changes, unit conversions, and disaster assistance, always posturing the Idaho Military Division for continued viable, relevant future missions that fit both our nation and Idaho's needs.

Under his leadership, the Idaho National Guard has provided outstanding support during recent state activations in support of wildland firefighting and statewide flood operations. He provided the same remarkable support when the Idaho troops deployed in support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM, NEW DAWN, and Combined Joint Task Force-- Horn of Africa. Additionally, his leadership during the 116th National Training Center (NTC) rotation facilitated superior operational results. He was the driving force behind formulating and implementing National Guard Youth ChalleNGe and STARBASE programs for the State of Idaho. He worked tirelessly promoting programs for Idaho youth providing alternative paths to success. Furthermore, the overall readiness of the 124th Fighter Wing gave credence to the outstanding mission results and professionalism they showed in their recent Southwest Asia deployment.

General Sayler has placed command emphasis on preparing and taking care of deployed Idaho Guard members. His unparalleled support of Family Support, Yellow Ribbon, and Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve programs has greatly benefitted the individuals who have recently returned from deployment and the families who welcomed them home.

General Sayler authored the first joint consultation agreement with the sovereign tribes of Idaho, recognized at the national level by both the Army and Air National Guard as the baseline for Government-to- Government Tribal Consultation.

General Sayler is an outstanding and highly respected officer recognized nationally for his many contributions to mission accomplishment during 45 years of dedicated service to our nation, the United States Air Force, and the great State of Idaho.

It is a great honor to congratulate General Sayler on his remarkable career of achievement that will leave a lasting legacy to the State of Idaho. General Sayler represents the best of the many talented people in the Idaho National Guard whose knowledge and skill

have been essential to keeping our nation and the State of Idaho strong and secure. I thank General Sayler for his service to our nation, and congratulate him on his many accomplishments and retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Kemal Pasamehmetoglu for his leadership at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). For the past five and a half years, Dr. Pasamehmetoglu has served as the Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science & Technology at INL.

Dr. Pasamehmetoglu has been instrumental in supporting the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy in developing the roadmap and setting national research and development priorities. His vision and passion for nuclear energy has been a huge asset to INL, the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the nation.

During his tenure, Kemal traveled the globe serving in leadership positions in multi-national collaborative efforts. He enhanced INL's reputation nationally and internationally as a groundbreaking laboratory for nuclear energy research and development.

Most recently, Kemal led the national effort to develop the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) initiative and served as its first National Director. The GAIN initiative provides the nuclear community with access to the technical, regulatory, and financial support necessary to move innovative nuclear energy technologies toward commercialization while ensuring the continued safe, reliable, and economic operation of the existing nuclear fleet.

Kemal has accepted a new position at INL as the Executive Director of the Versatile Fast Neutron Source Research and Development Initiative. A fast reactor would be groundbreaking in providing next generation nuclear fuel testing capabilities.

Kemal holds a doctorate in mechanical engineering from the University of Central Florida and has more than 30 years of research engineering experience within the national laboratory system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate South Central Community Action Partnership for making extensive positive impacts on the lives of low-income families in South-Central Idaho and on the occasion of their organization's 50th anniversary.

South Central Community Action Partnership is a highly valued local, charitable, non-profit corporation in Idaho's 2nd Congressional District. Although it began in the 1960s to oversee area Head Start programs, in fifty years it has changed thousands of lives.

Since 1967, SCCAP has developed important Idaho programs such as the Family Development and Families in Transition Program, the Valley House Coalition, a Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, the Supportive Services for Veteran Families, the Twin Falls-based Weatherization Program, and the Boy's & Girl's Club of Magic Valley. Of special note, the Partnership has led efforts to build seniors' centers in the cites of Twin Falls, Buhl, Burley, Jerome, and Kimberly.

In addition, many of SCCAP's projects have been so successful that they have become independent organizations themselves or even parts of Idaho government programs. These include their Regional Housing Council (now the Region IV Housing Coalition), their Youth Challenge Project (which evolved into the Jerome Youth Center), their Family Planning Project (which became part of the District Health Department), their summer Migrant Head Start Programs (now the Idaho Migrant Council), and their invaluable Guardian ad Litem Program (now the Fifth Judicial CASA Guardian ad Litem).

As a small example of their impact, Mr. Speaker, over the past 5 years alone, SCCAP has assisted an average of more than 6,800 families and represented more than 20,000 individuals, helping with weatherization, veteran services, food, transportation, affordable housing, and many other valuable fields in our Idaho communities.

The SCCAP's hardworking administrators have consistently earned the trust of the people of Idaho, from Betty L. Wooten's leadership of the organization in 1967, all the way to Ken J. Robinette's and Joe Herring's leadership today.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank South Central Community Action Partnership for their service and commitment to the residents of South- Central Idaho.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and his dedication to the sound management of natural resources on behalf of the constituents in his State.

Placer mining is unique to Alaska and has a unique history in place in Alaska's economy. As such, the BLM proposal for unique reclamation and bonding requirements need to receive additional review.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Joe Herring for 31 years of distinguished economic development service to the citizens of South-Central Idaho and on the occasion of his retirement from his current position as President of Region IV Development Association, Inc.

In 1980, Mr. Herring came to Idaho to pursue a graduate degree in geography and land use planning after completing his undergraduate studies at New Mexico State University. Like other transplants to Idaho, Mr. Herring was drawn to the state's wild places and exceptional natural beauty.

Mr. Herring's career in economic development began in 1980 as a land use planner in Moscow, Idaho--taking a part-time job that soon turned into a passion for assisting Idaho's rural communities. In 1986, he joined Region IV Development Association, Inc. as its Executive Director and set in motion a decades' long career working to improve the lives and livelihoods of Idaho residents. Under his leadership, the small regional planning organization grew from offering only work force training into supporting a wide variety of programs to promote job creation, economic development, community development, downtown revitalization, business financing, and many others.

During Mr. Herring's tenure, Region IV Development has been able to facilitate more than $1.2 billion in public and private sector investment in the eight counties of South-Central Idaho. These public improvement and business projects have supported the creation of more than 5,000 new employment opportunities for Idahoans. From the development of new drinking water systems to the construction of small rural clinics, from industrial park development to building new technical education facilities, Mr. Herring's impact on communities throughout rural Idaho has been significant.

With a focus on expanding community and economic development in South-Central Idaho, Mr. Herring has founded, incorporated, and led a number of organizations that have contributed to the growth and sustainability of rural communities throughout Idaho. Looking to bring state, federal and private sector resources to bear on local issues, Mr. Herring has served Idahoans in many capacities including as chairman of the Idaho Public Transportation Advisory Council, the Idaho Rural Partnership, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, Idaho-Nevada Community Development Financial Institution, and the South-Central Community Action Partnership. Mr. Herring has shown exceptional commitment to strengthening support networks available to foster small businesses and to help rural communities attract economic investments. To that end, Mr. Herring was responsible for bringing the Small Business Development Center to the region. He was also instrumental to the incorporation of the Southern Idaho Tourism and the Southern Idaho Economic Development Organization. Mr. Herring has led an amazing career dedicated to serving the people of Idaho.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank Mr. Herring for his service and commitment to economic development in Idaho. On behalf of a grateful state, I wish him well in the next chapter of his life.

Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct honor to bring the fiscal year 2018 Energy and Water bill before you today.

Before I go into the details, I would like to recognize Chairman Frelinghuysen. It is because of his leadership and unswerving commitment to the appropriations process that our committee has managed to bring 12 bills through the full committee process and have them ready for consideration by the House.

I would also like to thank Ranking Members Lowey and Kaptur. As always, their thoughtful approach to issues has made this a better bill.

The bill totals $37.6 billion, which is $209 million less than last year's level and $3.2 billion above the request.

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

The bill provides strong support for the Department of Energy's national defense programs. Weapons activities is funded at $10.24 billion, up $921 million from last year's level, to keep our Nation's nuclear deterrent reliable and effective.

This increase will fully fund the ongoing stockpile life extension programs and will make substantial progress toward addressing the continued deterioration of infrastructure across the enterprise. The recommendations for Naval Reactors is $1.49 billion, and includes full funding for the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, formerly referred to as the Ohio-class replacement.

Additionally, the bill provides funding increases across the Department of Energy to defend against cyber attacks and, within Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, to strengthen energy sector cybersecurity preparedness, response, and recovery.

This bill addresses the critical infrastructure work of the Army Corps of Engineers, providing a total of $6.2 billion, an increase of $120 million more than last year.

This recommendation makes full use of all annual revenues from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

The harbor maintenance trust fund activities are funded at $1.34 billion, which is $40 million more than fiscal year 2017, an increase of $375 million above the budget request, and the same as the WRDA target.

The bill provides $74 million more than last year for flood and storm damage reduction activities.

This is a responsibile bill, one that makes some difficult choices in order to prioritize the most critical Federal programs. As a result, as has been mentioned already, this bill eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy--or ARPA-E, as it is known--and the title 17 loan guarantee program of the Department of Energy, as proposed by the President.

I realized some people are concerned about that. These are programs that I happen to like also. But this is what happens when you are $20 trillion in debt: you have to make tough choices. And that is what the Appropriations Committee is doing: making some of the difficult choices that we have to make.

This bill includes a number of targeted investments above the budget request to ensure a secure, independent, and prosperous energy future.

Mr. Chairman, this is a strong bill that will protect our national security interests, address our most pressing infrastructure needs, and advance our economy. I urge everyone to support it.

I would like to thank the staff of the Energy and Water Committee, both ranking and minority members, and of the full committee, for the work they have done in making sure we can get this bill to the floor.

Again, I urge Members to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate my colleague's statement on the Denali Commission. He is a strong advocate for Alaska and the important work that the Denali Commission conducts in the State.

The House mark this year supports the Denali Commission and its efforts rather than the administration's request to terminate the agency.

The elimination of the Denali Commission would have deprived many communities of essential infrastructure and economic development projects.

In a time of economic change, these communities can scarcely afford to lose the millions of dollars in private investment leveraged by the Commission annually.

In the event the subcommittee receives additional funding in conference, I would be happy to work with my colleague to ensure the Denali Commission is provided sufficient funds to support their efforts in his State.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Alaska.

Actually, the offset does not come out of EERE.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

It comes from Corps expenses and administration.

I knew we could get through this.

Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Soo Locks project is of great importance to my colleague from Michigan, as well as other Members from the Great Lakes. I would be happy to work with them to see if we can advance this project to ensure continued navigation on the Great Lakes.

I have to remind my colleague that the amendment increases the funding level of an account. It does not direct that funding level to a particular activity, and, for that reason, the amendment does not constitute a major shift in funding between accounts, and I will support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Faso for the question. The gentleman is correct on his reading of the bill. Projects authorized under section 5003 of the 2007 water bill are eligible for this additional funding by the Army Corps of Engineers. This is reflected in report language from the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

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

Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Simpson of Idaho

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 473, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the en bloc amendments have been agreed to by both sides, and I would urge my Members to support the en bloc amendments.

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

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, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for his question.

Yes. It has been the committee's intent that funds provided to date were to be used to complete the feasibility study and issue a chief's report. There is additional funding provided in this bill that could be allocated to the Rahway River study, if necessary.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

We would be pleased to work with the gentleman from New Jersey on such a meeting and to ensure a successful conclusion to the feasibility study.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. It is wonderful to have someone who can talk with some intelligence about what we are doing here, and keep the attention of the body as we are waiting for Members to come to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 3219, pursuant to House Resolution 473, amendment No. 32 and amendment No. 35, printed in House Report 115-259, may be offered out of sequence.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand that reducing the size of the bureaucracy is an important issue for many Members, and should be for all of us.

As chair of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am always open to hearing if my colleagues have particular concerns with agency budget requests. I could be supportive of thoughtful strategies for reducing the size of government by making agencies more efficient and carrying out their statutory goals. That is not what this amendment does. This amendment simply slashes 10 percent from each administrative account in the bill.

Most of these accounts have been held flat or even slightly decreased over the past several years. Reducing them an additional 10 percent, with no clear idea on how such cuts would be absorbed, is simply not the right way to address the size of the Federal Government. It could take longer to review and improve important water resource projects--I hear about that all the time from my colleagues--or to issue grants and approve research agreements--I hear about that all the time from my colleagues--or to respond to congressional information requests--I hear about that all the time from my colleagues.

These cuts would also put at risk the cybersecurity efforts of each agency, reducing their efforts to secure their own IT infrastructure. I don't think that is what the gentleman from Michigan intended, but that is a very possible result of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I must urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman's concern is. In fact, it is a concern not only in Florida, but all over the country. It is a concern in Ohio. It is actually a concern in Idaho. You wouldn't think about that, but they are having some problems in Idaho with algal blooms, also. So it is something that we need to get on top of.

I would just like to clarify that the amendment does not direct funds to any particular activities so that doesn't necessarily mean that this will get done, but I understand what the gentleman is trying to do.

For that reason, and because it doesn't upset the balance of the bill, I will not oppose the amendment, but I want to work with him, as well as, I am sure, the ranking member, because this is an issue we have got to address across the country. I appreciate him bringing this matter and this issue to our attention so that we can talk about it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and we not only need to work with the Corps, but we also need to work with the EPA in trying to address this issue because it is a lot broader than most people think.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the gentleman is trying to do. I would just point out again that this amendment does not direct the funds to any particular activity, so it will actually take some coordination with us and some conversation with the Army Corps of Engineers to make sure that this goes in the area that we would like it to go to to study just what the gentleman was talking about.

But because it doesn't direct it to a particular activity, for that reason and because it does not upset the balance of

the bill, I will not oppose the amendment. In fact, I will support the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is going to be something that the ranking member and I happen to disagree on.

Poison pill riders--I have always liked that term, ``poison pill riders.'' What they are are policy changes. If they are policy changes you like, they are policy changes. If you don't like them, they are poison pill riders. So when they had the majority, they put what we considered poison pill riders in their bill, but they were policy changes, and that is what we do in some appropriations bills.

But I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I have been debating this issue for, I don't know, probably 10 years. While the change in the administration means that we are able to reduce the number of the issues we needed to address in this bill, some issues warrant continued congressional attention--WOTUS is one of them.

My reason for opposing the Obama administration's WOTUS rule remains the same. The rule would greatly expand Federal jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the definition used under the Clean Water Act of navigable waters was hard to define and told them that they need a new definition.

Well, the EPA's design on a new definition is, okay, we will just control everything. So everybody thinks that those waters that are now under control of the Clean Water--I mean, of the WOTUS rule written by the Obama administration were unregulated before. They were not unregulated. They were regulated by the States, and the States did a good job of regulating those things.

But now the Federal Government has come in and taken control of all of those States. We think, and the courts have ruled, that this is too broad a definition of what they intended and what the Clean Water rule states.

Nobody wants dirty water--nobody. But what we want is a rule that separates what the Federal Government has the authority to control and what the States have the authority to control.

President Trump moved quickly on this issue by issuing an executive order in February, and a few weeks ago, the EPA and the Corps announced the first step in a two-step process: a proposed rule to rescind the WOTUS rule and recodify the previous regulatory text.

The second step will be a second rulemaking to reevaluate the definition of waters of the United States in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

The provision in this bill is supportive of these efforts. First, it provides clear authorization to withdraw the Obama administration's rule. Second, it clarifies what rule will be in effect if the WOTUS rule is withdrawn, specifically, the same rules that were in effect immediately prior to the promulgation of the final WOTUS rule. And third, it does not affect the Trump administration's ability to develop a new rule, one that will provide more clarity and certainty for the regulated community while staying within the legal bounds provided by the Supreme Court.

For these reasons, I have to oppose this amendment, and I strongly oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment-- not just opposition to this amendment, but strong opposition to this amendment.

This bill fully funds the request of $10.2 billion for weapons activities, which is, as the gentleman stated, an increase of $921 million over fiscal year 2017.

I have got to tell you, from his comments, you would think we were growing the nuclear stockpile. The reality is we are decreasing the size of the nuclear stockpile currently under the new START program. But even having done that, we have to fund the modernization of our nuclear stockpile, and it is one of my highest priorities in this bill.

The activities the gentleman proposes to cut are the primary reasons the Energy and Water bill is being included as a division in the Defense minibus, because maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile is essential to our Nation's national security.

The increase provided in this bill to weapons activities is needed to extend the life of four nuclear warheads and to address the continued deterioration of the infrastructure at the Department of Energy's nuclear sites. These investments are long overdue and must be funded if our Nation is to have a credible nuclear deterrent, regardless of the size of that nuclear deterrent.

I would say that the Department of Defense is carrying out a nuclear posture review that will inform future funding needs. Until that concludes, there is no change in our Nation's nuclear defense requirements, and Congress, I believe, must fully fund those requirements if our Nation is to have a credible nuclear deterrent.

Increases are also needed, as I said, to address the aging infrastructure at the Department of Energy's nuclear energy sites.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment that the gentleman from Illinois is offering and would encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

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

Mr. Chair, I would say that the Secretary of Energy is required to report to the President on

the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. This is part of that requirement by the Department of Energy so that they can assure the President that our nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. Modernizing these nuclear weapons makes sense.

Now, we can sit and argue whether we need all these nuclear weapons or not--I happen to think we can get by on quite a number fewer nuclear weapons--but we still have to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile that we currently have and let the Department of Defense do their Nuclear Posture Review and make a determination of what ought to be the ultimate number of nuclear weapons we have, but, as long as we have this, we have got to make sure they are safe and they are reliable.

Mr. Chair, I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the EERE. I actually like the program. But we had to make some difficult decisions, and our highest priority is maintaining our nuclear stockpile and making sure that our defense activities were fully funded.

Secondly, it was making sure that the Army Corps of Engineers was fully funded at the WRDA level that our colleagues here on the floor always insist on. That means we had to make some difficult decisions within the Department of Energy. EERE, we did the best we could.

But when the gentleman says, you know, we are not living in the Cold War anymore, so we don't need the nuclear weapons and stuff and we don't need these facilities and stuff, you are right, we are not living in the Cold War anymore. It is scarier times right now than it was in the Cold War.

You never need those facilities until you need those facilities, and you better have had them by then. That is the problem. It is not looking forward.

So I oppose this amendment because we have done our best within the weapons activities to make sure that we do what our Nation requires, and that is to make sure that we have a safe, reliable, and secure nuclear stockpile.

And we ought to let the Defense Department come out with their Nuclear Posture Review and tell us what they believe we need as a weapons system, altogether, when that review comes out.

I oppose it also because it takes money for the arguments made by my friends from West Virginia, because it takes money out of the fossil energy research. As they said every time I have asked the Department of Energy, ``What do you think the amount of energy we are going to consume over the next 20 or 30 years that comes from hydrocarbons, coal, and natural gas, is going to be in the future,'' it is actually a larger part, not a smaller part.

And while I have been to NREL, I think NREL is a great lab. They do some incredible work out there. We want to support them. We want to make sure that they stay open and that they can do the job that we have asked them to do and that our other labs can also.

But this amendment, I think, is directly the wrong direction to go.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

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

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

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 claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

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 claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 22 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, July 27, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Wiley J. Dobbs for 33 years of distinguished service educating Idahoans on the occasion of his retirement from his current position as Superintendent of Twin Falls School District.

Dr. Dobbs' career as an educator is marked by a stalwart commitment to students across Idaho, particularly in Twin Falls. After serving as a high school teacher in Montpelier, Idaho, Dr. Dobbs returned to his hometown of Twin Falls to serve as an educator in both junior high schools and high schools, as well as a stint at the University of Idaho as an education instructor. After years in the classroom, Dr. Dobbs transitioned to the Twin Falls School District as Director of Operations in 2000. By 2003, he had accepted the position that would carry him to retirement: Superintendent of Twin Falls School District.

Throughout his career, Dr. Dobbs has demonstrated a superior dedication to the lives of the students and families he serves. In fact, Dr. Dobbs spent much of his career creating opportunities for students outside the classroom by volunteering as an advisor to the Congressional Award program. With his help, the city of Twin Falls has garnered national recognition for the quality and quantity of students who earn their Congressional Award for an outstanding commitment to setting and achieving their goals.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank Dr. Dobbs for his service and commitment to education in Idaho. On behalf of a grateful state, I wish him well in the next chapter of his life.