Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4719, the America Gives More Act of 2014, and in particular in support of the provision that would make the current tax deduction for the contribution of conservation easements permanent. As a cosponsor of similar legislation, I am pleased to see this provision included in the bill. In my home state of Idaho, I have repeatedly seen the positive impact of conservation easements. One of my favorite stretches of river in Idaho is the South Fork of the Snake, near Idaho Falls, where I live. It is a great place to fish, watch bald eagles, or enjoy the beauty of nature without interruption, and this is due in large part to the fact that conservation easements protect the land on the river from development and created wonderful areas for recreation.

More importantly, however, conservation easements have a significant benefit to our economy in Idaho. Farming and ranching have long been a way of life in my state, but increasingly what was once vast swaths of ranchland is being broken up into smaller parcels for development. The conservation easement tax incentive gives many farmers and ranchers the option to put some of their land into conservation easements, protecting habitat and scenic landscapes, instead of selling to developers. In addition, easements that allow for continued agricultural use provide certainty for those who want to keep ranching and farming.

I am pleased that this provision was included in the bill, and I look forward to seeing it benefit willing landowners who are working together with land management agencies to preserve the open spaces in Idaho.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlelady's amendment.

For years, our subcommittee has criticized the Department of Energy's use of its uranium transfer authorities. The Department's reliance on its uranium transfers to generate funds for cleanup has inappropriately circumvented the appropriations process, has adversely impacted our domestic uranium mining and conversion industry, and is now creating instability of funding at Portsmouth as the market price of uranium continues to drop.

The amendment restates current law but sends a message to the Department that it must cease relying on these off-budget measures, and I am pleased to support the gentlewoman's amendment and thank her for it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.

The Financial Services Appropriations bill has carried language for years which prohibits funding for any Federal Government contract with foreign incorporated entities which are treated as inverted domestic corporations. This language has been carried annually in the government-wide General Provisions section of the Financial Services Appropriations bill since approximately 2005 and is requested annually by the current administration.

The changes which this amendment would propose to make could have significant consequences and really should be handled by the proper tax committees.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We would be happy to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

I would be happy to join the gentlelady in a colloquy.

Yes, I would agree that that is the intent.

I would agree to do so, and I believe the gentlelady from Ohio would agree to do so as well.

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

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am willing to accept this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

We are happy to accept this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

Madam Chairwoman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rules states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Madam Chairwoman, I strongly oppose this ill-conceived amendment.

This amendment would cut $52 million out of the Nuclear Energy Program. This is on top of an amendment that was adopted yesterday that already cuts $73 million out of the nuclear energy program.

What I have heard for 2 days now is that climate change is a big issue. In fact, the drought in California and the West has been blamed on climate change. It may be true. I don't know. But if you believe that, then why are you attacking the one thing that can produce energy for this country in a carbon-free way? That makes no sense.

So I strongly oppose this amendment. As I said, I understand my colleague's support for the title XVI program. Due to the request from the gentleman and many others within this Congress, funding for the title XVI program basically is at current rate while many other programs have been cut.

We did this by balancing many priorities that the amendment would completely ignore. The amendment would cut, as I said, $52 million from nuclear energy. This is a 6 percent cut on top of the amendment yesterday. Accepting this amendment would be a 14 percent cut in nuclear energy.

Again, if you really believe in climate change and that we have to address it, one of the major things that is going to address it is going to be nuclear energy. Well, I like wind and solar and all of those kind of things. They don't produce the energy for the base load that is necessary in this country, particularly in California.

As I said, this is an ill-conceived amendment. Funding for nuclear research and development is a critical part of this recommendation support for a balanced energy portfolio, American manufacturing, and reduced reliance on foreign energy sources. Nuclear power currently generates 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, and it will continue to play a role in the future, I hope. Nuclear energy will be part of the energy mix in the future. America invented nuclear power, but now other nations are mimicking our companies' designs and building them entirely within their own borders.

This amendment is bad policy, and I strongly oppose its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve my point of order and claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I don't usually do that, but since he challenged me directly, let me see if I have got this straight. We have a law that says if you are going to import natural gas, it has to be on an American-flagged ship. And now we want to put in a law that says if you export natural gas, it has to be on an American ship.

So, as I understand it, if every other country adopted a law similar to this, according to their country, we could neither import nor export natural gas around this world. So while this might be a good law, seemingly, I don't see how it would actually be beneficial.

The gentleman always has thoughtful amendments which always seem to be out of order.

Point of Order

Madam Chairwoman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XX1.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chair, it is deja vu. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve my point of order, and I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, the gentleman brings up an interesting subject, as the gentlewoman from Ohio said, and it is something that I would hope he would continue to work on through the appropriate channels. There are problems that may exist with his proposal here, and this is not the right place to do it, on the appropriations bill.

The amendment would prevent the Department of Energy from approving an application for liquefied natural gas export, unless the Department has consulted with the U.S. Maritime Administration on the availability of U.S.-flagged vessels to transport the liquefied natural gas. The Department does not have nor are applicants for LNG export currently required to provide information on which vessels will be used for transportation.

In fact, shipping companies are separate and distinct from companies applying for export licenses, and assessing the shipping requirements for LNG is not within the DOE's current realm of technical expertise. The reality is that there are a few, if any, U.S.-flagged vessels capable of carrying LNG at this point.

I know the gentleman would like to change that, and I agree with him on that, but we need to do it through the proper channels. We need to do it through legislation that, I understand, the gentleman is probably working on now through the authorizing committees.

Point of Order

Madam Chairwoman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional requirements.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I want to say, even though I am going to raise a point of order against this amendment, I support the idea of what he is trying to do.

I am concerned about some of the unintended consequences this amendment might have. But I agree with its intent, to prevent administration rules that increase electricity prices or reduce electricity reliability.

I look forward to working with my colleague to identify and mitigate, if necessary, its unintended consequences and the ways that we might be able to do this that don't subject themselves to a point of order.

Madam Chairwoman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. And I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns.

We engaged in a colloquy an hour or so ago. And I supported the Member's concerns, and I still do. However, this amendment goes beyond what I can support.

I am concerned that such a blunt action, as this amendment, may have unintended consequences. We simply have not had time to understand all of the implications to electricity prices and electricity reliability or other interactions with the FERC order referenced in the amendment. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.

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.

While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayer dollars, this is not an approach I can support. What she suggests of just saving one penny from the Federal agencies is what we have been doing for the last 4 years on the Appropriations Committee, as she recognized. We have been reducing spending. In fact, we have reduced spending much more than 1 percent.

This bill is fully consistent with the Ryan-Murray budget compromise, and it spends, as was mentioned, $50 million below last year's level. The Ryan-Murray budget deal was passed by this House.

While difficult tradeoffs had to be made, this bill in its current form balances our needs. We prioritize funding for critical infrastructure and our national defense. These tradeoffs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts and are responsible, yet the gentlewoman's amendment proposes an across-the-board cut on every one of these programs. It makes no distinction between where we need spending to invest in our infrastructure, promote jobs, meet our national security needs, and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals.

The basic problem I have and have always had with across-the-board cuts is that it doesn't recognize the programs that are priorities and things that we ought to be spending money on, the Federal Government ought to be spending money on, and those things that maybe we ought to cut more.

In the Appropriations Committee, every time we do an appropriation bill, those are the decisions we make. We prioritize them. When the Democrats are in the majority, the priorities go toward their priorities; the spending goes toward their priorities more. When we are in the majority, the spending goes more toward our priorities.

If you look at our bill, there are areas in there that, if I were king for a day and could write any bill I wanted, there are areas I would probably cut more; there are areas that I would probably spend more. But this is a bill that is a compromise, hopefully a compromise for 435 Members of Congress that have different priorities and different needs. It does meet the budget goals that we have established in the Republican budget that was passed this year.

With that, I oppose this amendment, and I yield to my good friend from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and 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 support this amendment.

On this particular issue, applying the referenced WRRDA provision to this fiscal year 2015 bill means that, roughly, $30 million must be provided for the harbor maintenance of the Great Lakes navigation system.

The underlying bill funds the budget request, which includes approximately $100 million for the Great Lakes. Therefore, while I believe it is unnecessary, I do not object to this amendment and will support it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my good friend.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I am sympathetic to what the gentleman is trying to do. It is a concern that I have had for a number of years. And, in fact, a few years ago, when I was chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, we brought down a bill and we completely defunded any listing of new species or designation of critical habitat because the Endangered Species Act hadn't been reauthorized for, like, 26 years or something like that. Our intent was not to get rid of the Endangered Species Act or to get rid of the designation of critical habitat. Our intent was to send the message that the authorizing committees need to do their job.

I was supported in that, actually, by the chairman of the Resources Committee that is in charge of reauthorizing that bill. So far that has not been done. They haven't been able to get it done.

As you know, it is sometimes very difficult to pass reauthorization bills for a lot of these different programs, but many of these different programs are very, very important. I continue to try to seek a way to put pressure on the authorizing committees to actually do their job, to get these done.

So far, just defunding them has not been successful in achieving that, and I don't know why that is. It is frustrating both to me and to the sponsor of this amendment. Yet this amendment would do great damage to the Department of Energy. And I guess you could use this government- wide.

There are a lot of programs. You would be surprised which programs haven't been reauthorized. I think the Department of State hasn't been reauthorized. Most seniors programs have not been reauthorized. If we can find a way to put pressure on the authorizing committees to do this, I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to try to accomplish that goal, but ending the programs this way, I think, would be too dramatic of an effect.

So, while I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do, I have to oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I guess the first question I would ask is: Why 2008 spending levels? Why not 2006 or 2004 or 2000 or 1998 spending levels, or 1972 or 1900?

What we need to do is look at what we are spending now and create savings by deciding what is important and what we ought to be doing and what are those things that we might like to do but we just don't have the money to do, and eliminate those programs or reduce the spending in many of those programs, which is what the Appropriations Committee does every day.

When these bills come down here, we have had hearings on the different functions of the Federal Government. And believe me, if you or I were to sit down and discuss what the Federal Government ought to be doing, we would agree on a lot. There would be things we would disagree on that I think are essential and things that I would disagree that you would think were essential. We have 435 Members, represent all corners of this country, and a budget is, by its very nature, a compromise in those different opinions on what ought to be funded and what the proper role of government is.

One thing we do know, that we are $17 trillion in debt, and that a portion of that, a portion of the solution, is reducing our discretionary spending. We have been doing that for the last 4 years, and it has been hard work by the Appropriations Committee.

We also know that you cannot get this budget to balance, no matter how hard you try, by reducing discretionary spending. It is not large enough, in the overall context of things, to cut it enough to get the budget to balance. You have got to do other things. You have got to have tax reform. You have got to have entitlement reform. We have to look at every area that the government is spending. Right now, I think it is about 28 percent of the total expenditures of the Federal Government are discretionary spending. About 72 percent of them are mandatory. They are on autopilot. They just go on unless we change the underlying law.

So we have got to have the courage to address a lot of the things that are driving our debt. I will tell you, you will never balance this budget until you get the economy growing again. That is the reality.

When you looked at the late 1990s, when President Clinton and a Republican Congress balanced the budget--or at least that is who was in charge at the time. We can argue about who balanced it. But at that period of time, it wasn't because Republicans were so conservative that they came in and reduced spending and the budget all of a sudden got balanced, or it wasn't that President Clinton came in and just raised taxes and everything and all of sudden we had a ton more revenue. What it was is that the economy grew, and I mean it boomed.

We had the dot-com bubble, if you remember, where we had more money coming in to the Federal Government than we knew what to do with. In fact, when we talked about paying off the national debt at the time, I actually heard debates from leading economists that said we could pay off the national debt too fast--we had that much money coming in-- because the debts wouldn't come due when all the money was coming in.

But then, of course, that turned around when the dot-com bubble burst, and since that, then 9/11 happened and a whole bunch of other things and two wars and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

The reality is that you can't balance this budget simply by reducing discretionary spending, but I will tell you that the Appropriations Committee has been doing their job. They have been looking at the proper role of Federal Government, what our responsibilities are, what we must fund, and what we should fund, and also at what we would like to do and sometimes just don't have the money to do. So those are the difficult decisions we have been making, and we continue to do that.

This type of approach, I think, that would take these accounts, only some accounts, back to the 1998 levels, I think, would hurt our economy. And, in fact, one of the big parts of our account is the Army Corps of Engineers, which does water infrastructure, locks, dams, harbor maintenance, all of that kind of stuff which is vital to our economy. I don't know that you want to go in and cut that by 7.8 percent. The President proposed a $1 billion cut in it, a huge cut in it. We restored it because we, both Republicans and Democrats, realize how important the water infrastructure of this country is.

Those are the decisions that we make on the Appropriations Committee, a committee that I am proud to serve on, that has made, over the last several years, some very, very difficult decisions, and will continue to do so because, just like every Member of this Congress, we realize we can't continue racking up the debt as we have over the last several decades.

So I appreciate that, and I would oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

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

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the gentleman who just spoke would call the administration. His budget request was nearly $1 billion below last year's for the Army Corps of Engineers. That is what the administration proposed to us.

We restored that and, in fact, increased last year's Army Corps of Engineers budget by $25 million while, at the same time, cutting $50 million out of the overall bill, so I wish he would talk to the administration about its budget request.

This is a balanced bill, made more balanced by the 2 days of amendments we have debated--some accepted, some not accepted--from all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

We have already taken $45 million out of the DA account. I know it is an easy account to target, to just take money out of, but at some point in time, you have to stop, and we have already taken $45 million out of the DA account.

An important characteristic of any Member of this body is to know when to talk and when to shut up. It is after 9. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and for the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.004

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I believe we have two more speakers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We will accept the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, while I share my colleague's support for energy efficiency programs, the bill funds EERE, the Energy Efficiency portfolio, at $26 million above last year's level,

with targeted increases for weatherization assistance and advanced manufacturing.

What we did in this bill, actually, was refocus some of the administration's requested increases in the renewable energy arena to where we actually use energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas provide 82 percent of the electricity in this country, of the energy used in this Nation's homes and businesses, 82 percent. Reducing the fossil energy research--they are studying things like how heat can more efficiently be converted into electricity in a cross-cutting effort with the nuclear and solar energy programs, how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical power.

The amendment would also reduce funding for a program that ensures we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. In fact, if we increased the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants by just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground.

That is the research we are doing in the fossil energy area. That is where we would take the money out of, the area where most of our electricity is produced from, and shift it to an area, while important, doesn't produce nearly as much energy as the other areas in this bill.

So, while I understand what the gentlelady is trying to do, we have actually increased the energy efficiency budget, as I said, by $26 million above last year, and we will continue to work on that.

I would oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to vote against it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. The gentleman's amendment would increase appropriated funds to Portsmouth by another $15 million. Because of the overall reductions that were necessary in the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup programs, we balanced these reductions across all cleanup sites so that no one site is targeted.

I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns about the site, and this bill provides strong support for Portsmouth. Despite the fact that funding at most sites is going down, the bill actually boosts funding for the site by $37 million above the fiscal year 2014 and $15 million above the budget request.

However, I can't support further increases to compensate for the Department's off-budget uranium transfers, which our subcommittee has criticized for years. The Department has been transferring stockpiles of uranium to generate cleanup funds for the site, a practice the Government Accountability Office has determined to be illegal and which could be further held up in fiscal year 2015 due to recent litigation.

The Department's reliance on its uranium transfers has inappropriately circumvented the appropriations process, has adversely impacted our domestic uranium mining and conversion industry, and is now creating further problems as the market price of uranium continues to drop.

I am also concerned about the amendment's offsets, particularly the

cut to EERE, which is $113 million below the budget request. The last amendment, by Ms. Castor, proposed increasing EERE by taking money out of fossil energy. I opposed that. It wasn't because I don't like EERE. It was because I didn't like where they were taking the money from. This would take money out of EERE that is already reduced $113 million from last year, which I also oppose.

So I must oppose this gentleman's amendment and urge Members to do the same.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentlelady's comments.

I should say, it is not Portsmouth's or the gentleman from Ohio's fault that they have been using uranium transfers to fund this. It is not the people who are working there; it is not their fault. It is the Department's fault, and we have raised concerns for years that that is inappropriate and illegal. We knew that it was going to come to this when those uranium transfers couldn't be made anymore because of the price of uranium and other things, and it is the result of the choice of the Department to fund this by using the uranium transfers. Unfortunately, it has come to what we predicted would be a problem when we started raising these concerns with the Department.

So, while I understand what the gentleman is doing and sympathize with what the gentleman is doing and will be willing to work with him to see what could be done as we move this bill forward, I do have to oppose the amendment as it currently exists.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman from California's comments, I have to say that you can oppose this amendment and still like renewable energy, in contradiction to the gentleman's statement.

I rise to oppose this amendment that would increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $112 million using the fossil energy account, again, as an offset.

This year, funding for EERE is $1.789 billion, $113 million below last year and $528 million below the budget request. It is still $1.789 billion. It is not like we are eliminating EERE. They still have a substantial amount of money in that account. They have much more in that account than they have in the fossil energy account or that they have in the nuclear energy account.

This is a modest 6 percent cut from the robust funding level included in last year's omnibus appropriation bill and slightly below the fiscal year 2013 level presequester. Put another way, there is nearly $1 billion more than last year's House bill.

The funding that the recommendation provides is focused on three main priorities, where he is trying to take money out of the fossil energy account: helping America's manufacturers compete in the global marketplace; supporting the Weatherization Assistance Program; and addressing future high gas prices. These are areas with broad bipartisan support. We simply cannot afford to increase funding in this bill by diverting funds from research to fossil energy.

Fossil fuels, as I said during the last couple of amendments, such as coal, oil, and natural gas provide for 82 percent of the energy used by this Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority of energy needs for the foreseeable future. It is folly to believe that renewable energies are going to replace the base load that much of this produces for our energy needs in the future.

But renewable energies are an important part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that we have in this country. But it is not renewable energies that are going to replace all of the fossil energies that we have. So we need to do research into the fossil energies, too, and what they do.

If we increase the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants, as I said earlier, by just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground. That is energy efficiency. That is the research we are focusing on with funding this program. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

As I said, we tried to refocus the request from the administration to those areas that actually produce the energy. Eighty- two percent, as I said during my statement, is produced by coal, oil, and natural gas. That is where we do the majority of our research.

I am not saying we shouldn't do anything in the renewable energies. I love renewable energies. I don't believe that they are going to replace the majority of our base load.

And, as the gentleman said, you have got real problems when the sun isn't shining and you are using solar energy. You have got real problems if you are trying to address the base load. That means, when you turn on the switch, the power actually comes on and the light goes on. If you are trying to replace that base load and the wind isn't blowing, you have got no wind power. But they are a very important and vital part of our energy mix. But we are trying to put the research into those areas that produce most of the electricity while still maintaining research into those areas that are important for the future.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I also oppose the amendment. While I opposed increasing EERE funding in previous amendments, I am also opposed to eliminating EERE.

When you look at the traditional energy sources that we use, the government has done research into the fossil fuels, into nuclear energy, into fracking, into other things, and hydrocarbons because they are important.

It is not the companies that we try to pick winners and losers from, but it is the technology that we try to do the research into, to try to advance certain technologies and help technologies become more efficient for the consumers to use.

We are trying to make automobiles more fuel efficient. We are trying to do work to make a SuperTruck that is much more fuel efficient.

I guess it could be argued whether the government should do any research at all. Years and years ago, a lot of those things used to be done by private companies, when you had the Bell Labs and other types of things like that.

Those aren't done anymore by companies because they are much, much too expensive for companies to do, but they are good for our economy.

You could make the argument that we really shouldn't have put any money into space research and putting a man on the Moon--that should have been done by a private company--yet the American economy and the world has benefited greatly from the investment that American taxpayers made into NASA. The same is true with the fuels that we use.

While we have tried in this bill to refocus what the administration had proposed, which was huge increases for renewable energies that produce a minority--a small amount--of energy compared to the others, we have tried to refocus that appropriation to where it more accurately reflects the actual energy used, the percentage of the actual energy used.

That doesn't mean that we can completely eliminate EERE and renewable energies. As I said previously, I like renewable energies. I think they are cute. They provide a small portion of our overall energy demand, and I don't see that increasing a whole lot because they can't address the base load needs of our energy demand in this country, but they are going to be a very important part of an overall energy strategy.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the Office of Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability by $10 million, using funds from fossil energy as an offset.

We have already had conversations about taking funds out of where we create most of our energy. Some of the things that are done in fossil energy--and while the gentleman speaks passionately about the environment, fossil energy also is doing the research into sequestration and carbon capture technology.

Now, I don't suspect that we are going to stop using fossil energy in the near future. In fact, if you looked at the predictions of the Department of Energy of what the percentage of fossil energy--what percentage of the energy is going to be used by fossil energy--be created by fossil energy 20 years from now, it is pretty close to what it is now.

So it is important that we do some things environmentally, like carbon capture and sequestration, and we need to do some research into that. You are taking money out of an account that would do that. I don't think that is a wise thing for us to do.

While I share my colleague's support for the electrical grid, that is why this bill before us already provides a $13 million increase for the Office of Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability above last year-- or a 9 percent increase over the last year.

That is the largest percentage increase of any of the other applied energy programs within this bill--the largest increase.

The bill prioritizes programs within OE that keep our electrical grid safe and secure, including $47 million for cybersecurity and $16 million for infrastructure security, which will provide $8 million for a strategic operations center to better respond to emergencies.

While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I have already spoken of the important investments that our fossil energy research does for our economy and our electrical prices; therefore, I oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

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

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

I rise to oppose the amendment. This year, the committee continues its responsibility to reduce government spending, and we have worked tirelessly to that end. The bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by $113 million below last year's level and $528 million below the budget request.

The fossil and nuclear energy programs received modest increases of $31 million and $10 million, respectively. The increase to fossil energy will support research into how heat can be more efficiently converted into electricity, how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical power through fuel cells.

The increase to nuclear energy will accommodate a $10 million increase to support base physical and cybersecurity activities at the Idaho National Laboratory to protect the Nation's nuclear energy materials and a range of national security programs at the NNSA, Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies.

Although my colleague asserts that the amendment would keep the government from intervening in the private markets, these applied energy programs are strategic investments for our energy independence.

I appreciate my colleague's desire to reduce the size of government, but this

amendment goes too far by eliminating strategic investments we make for our own future.

I, therefore, oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from California, in that the rules of the House say we should not appropriate money for any unauthorized program.

Unfortunately, the authorizing committees have not reauthorized an awful lot of these programs throughout the government. In fact, a few years ago, I tried to reduce funding by eliminating any money for the endangered species listing because it was unauthorized for 26 years.

We lost on the floor on that, but his sentiment is absolutely correct, and we need to make sure the authorizing committees do their job.

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

Mr. Chairman, while I oppose the amendment, I understand my colleague wants to see increased funding for the conventional hydropower within EERE. I understand that.

I am a big fan of hydropower in the Pacific Northwest.

One of the reasons we have some of the cheapest electricity in the country is because of the great use of hydropower in the Pacific Northwest.

The bill before us actually increases conventional hydropower by $1.7 million above last year. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this important program as we move forward through this process, but I do oppose this amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the marine and hydrokinetic programs within the EERE account. I appreciate my colleague's passion for renewable energy programs. She has worked tirelessly to support efforts to advance American research and industry in this area.

This year's funding for EERE is $1.789 billion, $113 million below last year and $528 million below the budget request. This is roughly equivalent to the fiscal year 2013 level presequester and is nearly $1 billion more than last year's House bill.

Funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy is focused on three main priorities: helping American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace, supporting the Weatherization Assistance Program, and addressing future high gas prices. This left limited funding for renewable energy programs for which funding is prioritized to support two main projects: an offshore wind demonstration project and an enhanced geothermal field test site.

Within the remaining resources, the recommendation provides $38.5 million for water power and accepts the budget request proposal for an almost even split between the conventional hydropower program and the marine and hydrokinetic technologies program. I support the water program, and I would be happy to work with my friend in the event the EERE account receives additional funding in conference, but we simply cannot afford to increase these activities in this bill by diverting funds from inherently Federal responsibilities. While I am supportive of reducing the size of government, this amendment would reduce funding that supports 64 people within the Department of Administration. I must therefore reluctantly oppose the amendment and urge Members to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability by $20 million using funds from the departmental administration account as an offset.

The President's budget request proposes to increase the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability from $147 million to $180 million, a 22 percent increase, which the amendment would achieve. Instead, the bill before us provides a balanced increase of $13 million for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 9 percent above the fiscal year 2014 level. Put another way, that is a larger percentage increase than any other applied energy program in this bill. The underlying bill is a larger percentage increase than any other applied energy program in this bill.

The bill prioritizes programs within OE that keeps our electricity grid safe and secure. To that end, the bill provides $47 million to protect the energy sector's critical infrastructure against the ever- present threats of cyber attack and $16 million for infrastructure security, including $8 million for a strategic operations center to better respond to emergencies.

While I support the program championed by my colleagues, we must and have to abide by our allocation, and we simply cannot afford additional increases to the OE program by diverting funds from other Federal responsibilities. It is a choice that we have had to make as we balance this bill. As I said, this has the largest percentage increase--9 percent--of any other programs within this area of the budget. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge Members to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's references from the Bible in her debate. It is always interesting.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment would reduce funding for the fossil energy account by $31 million in favor of deficit reduction.

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide for 82 percent of the energy used by this Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future. That is 82 percent.

The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions to fossil energy, particularly with drastic cuts to the coal program, which is reduced by 29 percent under the budget request, and, instead, funds these programs at $593 million, $31 million above last year. With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil Energy will research how heat can be more efficiently converted into electricity in a cross-cutting effort with nuclear and solar energy programs, how water can be more efficiently used in water plants, and how coal can be used to produce electricity, electric power, through fuel cells.

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. In fact, if we increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants, as I have said before during this debate, if we increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants by just 1 percent--by just 1 percent--we could power an additional 2 million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground. That is the research we are focusing on with funding this program.

We all know that American families and businesses have struggled with high energy prices, and the fossil energy research program holds the potential once and for all to prevent future high prices and substantially increase our energy security.

Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to support this amendment. I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns about support for the ongoing cleanup efforts at the Department of Energy sites. This amendment is a small adjustment that will ensure continued progress to the West Valley Demonstration Project, and I am pleased to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the amendment proposes to shift funding from defense to nondefense functions.

Assuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. Shifting funding between defense and nondefense allocations would have negative repercussions on every appropriations bill by exceeding the Ryan-Murray budget caps that trigger sequestration.

I share my colleague's support for the programs within the Office of Science, and I will be happy to work with him in the event we have additional funding for the basic energy science program in conference. However, I must oppose the amendment as written, and urge others to do the same.

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, the amendment would restore the funding for the National Undergraduate Fellowship Program within the Office of Science, which was proposed for elimination as part of the administration's overall science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM's--consolidation efforts.

I appreciate my colleague's passion for the general science education. He has worked tirelessly to support efforts

that advance American research in this area. I have no issues with his amendment, and I would encourage its adoption by voice vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's passion with which she speaks about that, and I understand it, but when she says the failed Yucca Mountain policy, I have to remind her that Yucca Mountain is the law of the land. The policy of Yucca Mountain has not failed, and Yucca Mountain has not failed.

What happened is that someone running for the Presidency of the United States needed four electoral votes--or five or however many it was--in Nevada, so he promised the citizens of Nevada that he would shut down Yucca Mountain, regardless of what the law said, and that is what happened.

We can argue as to whether Yucca Mountain is the right place or not. I think there have been 52 or 53 studies done on Yucca Mountain. It is the most studied piece of earth on this Earth. We know more about it than anywhere else; yet, for political reasons, we have stopped it, and it will truly be a $15 billion waste if we don't proceed.

What we do in this bill is tell the administration to proceed with following the law, so I oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who has been an advocate and an ardent supporter of this for many years here in Congress.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reluctantly--and I do mean reluctantly--oppose the amendment.

The amendment would increase funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E, as has been mentioned, by $20 million using funds from the departmental administration as an offset.

I share my colleague's support for advanced research; that is why the bill before us already provides $280 million for ARPA-E. That is the highest funding level the Agency has ever received in an annual appropriation, equal to last year's, with all funding going to fully fund new projects over the next three years. Put another way, this bill funds ARPA-E at $210 million more than last year's House bill did. This is the highest level of funding that ARPA-E has ever received. In addition, the bill fully funds ARPA-E's open solicitation to support the most promising new energy technologies out there. However, we still have to work within our overall budget allocation.

While I support ARPA-E's program, we must abide by our allocation. Although I am sympathetic to reducing the size of government, we cannot support taking $20 million from the departmental administration. This would do more than just trim the fat beyond what is simply wasteful and ineffective; it would slash funding that would result in approximately 143 people being laid off within the Department of Energy. These are jobs with real impacts on families. Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $8.2 billion for NNSA's weapons activities, an increase of $423 million over fiscal year 2014 and $111 million below the budget request.

The bill takes advantage of all opportunities to reduce funding for activities that are not essential to maintaining the stockpile while making sure the highest priority needs are met.

Assuring funding for modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. This includes the full $17 million in the bill to initiate early conceptual studies for a cruise missile warhead life extension program, $7.6 million above the budget request.

The additional funding is a modest amount that will ensure an appropriate set of alternatives is being considered. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the way in which the gentleman is addressing two very important issues. The committee has decided that the Department hasn't yet told us what their option is if MOX were to close down.

We are asking for real cost estimates. There are differences of opinion about what the cost estimates for the life cycle of MOX are. So we have asked for further clarification.

And as the gentleman rightly stated, if we put it in cold standby and the decision is to proceed with MOX from the Department, it is going to cost us much more to bring it back up, which is why we have chosen the path that we have chosen.

The gentleman is also correct that I am as supportive and I think my ranking member is also--in fact, I think most of the Members on our subcommittee are--that nonproliferation is a very important issue. The question is: Can the Department spend $25 million more, and what will we get for that?

I want to work with you to make sure that we are doing the right thing and the intelligent thing in both arenas, so I appreciate the attitude that the gentleman is displaying in this.

I know there are a couple of individuals who would like to speak for a moment on MOX, so I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

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

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Again, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Nebraska for both his consideration of this and his passion in this arena for what may be, in the long run, the most important thing this committee does.

So I appreciate working with him and look forward to working with you to try to address this as we answer these questions as rapidly as we can.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's intent, and I will be happy to work with him as we move forward in conference, but at this time, I must insist upon my point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment inserts additional legislative language and is not merely perfecting.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as the gentleman said, would eliminate the Denali Commission, which is funded at last year's level of $10 million in this bill.

The Denali Commission provides infrastructure and economic development activities for some of the country's most rural and distressed communities. Regardless of whether it is one State or a region, the fact is the State is probably larger than any one of the regions that the Commission deals with.

In a time of economic instability, communities can scarily afford to lose the millions of dollars in private investments leveraged by the Commission annually. Elimination of the Denali Commission would deprive these communities of many essential infrastructure and economic development projects. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I oppose this amendment. It is an interesting argument the gentlelady made. The House has repeatedly had overwhelming votes in support of continuing the Yucca Mountain repository.

The language that would be stricken by this amendment we have been carrying for years as a way to keep the will of the House and the American people alive. In fact, the votes supporting Yucca Mountain in this House have been overwhelming each time that we voted on it.

I would remind the gentlelady that this doesn't mean that Yucca Mountain can never be closed. The comment of the gentleman from Illinois would still be true. An appropriation bill is a 1-year appropriation bill. That is why we carry this language in each appropriation bill.

We need to wait for the safety review by the NRC to be done to decide what we are going to do moving forward, instead of political decisions that have been made on Yucca Mountain in the past. And it has been a political decision. I think even the gentlelady would agree with that. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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 8 o'clock and 41 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 10, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my friend and colleague from California, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, to thank the House of Representatives and leaders on both sides of the aisle for their support of H.R. 1281, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act, which passed the House last night.

In 2008, Congresswoman Royal-Allard and I introduced the original Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act, which encouraged states to uniformly test for a recommended set of disorders and provided resources for states to expand and improve their screening programs.

Before this legislation, state screening tests varied greatly, and only 10 states and DC required infants to be screened for all the ``core conditions'' recommended by the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children.

Today, most states require screening for at least 29 of the 31 treatable core conditions.

This bipartisan reauthorization builds upon the foundation of the original bill and ensures infants continue to receive comprehensive screenings--which consists of a simple prick on the heel of newborns before they leave the hospital.

That blood sample tests for serious genetic, metabolic, or hearing disorders that may not be apparent at birth. Without this test, parents may have no way of knowing their child needs treatment.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of newborn screening is undeniable.

About one in every 300 newborns in the United States has a condition that can be detected through screening. Left untreated, these conditions can lead to serious illness, lifetime disabilities, or even death. These newborns appear healthy, but their conditions can deteriorate quickly and with no warning.

In addition, newborn screening is a powerful tool for savings in our overburdened health care system As a former dentist, I have seen the value of diagnosing and treating a condition early in a child's life.

One example of the merit of newborn screening comes from a 2012 study on severe combined immunodeficiency, known as SCID. SCID is one of the 31 conditions recommended for state screening.

The Medicaid cost of treating a baby with SCID in the first two years can be $2 million or more. Yet an infant diagnosed early can be cured through a bone marrow transplant in the first three months of life, costing $100,000. Without the early intervention, families suffer enormous economic and emotional burdens.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those who have worked so hard to make this legislation a reality, particularly Congresswoman Roybal- Allard, who has led the way in making this a reality, and the public health organizations who worked day and night to help move this bill through the process. I look forward to my Senate colleagues passing this important legislation and sending it to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Deputy Laboratory Director Todd Allen and Associate Laboratory Director Kemal Pasamehmetoglu, two of the Idaho National Laboratory's leaders in nuclear energy research and development. On June 17, 2014, The American Nuclear Society's Materials Science and Technology Division honored these two Idaho National Laboratory leaders with achievement awards at the American Nuclear Society meeting in Reno, Nevada. The awards were presented at the American Nuclear Society Embedded Topical meeting on Nuclear Fuels and Structural Materials.

Kemal Pasamehmetoglu, Idaho National Laboratory's Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science & Technology was honored as the 2013 recipient of its Special Achievement Award. The division's most prestigious award recognizes international leadership in establishing a science-based approach to nuclear fuel development and seminal contributions to the nuclear materials area.

Todd Allen, Idaho National Laboratory's Deputy Laboratory Director for Science & Technology, was honored as the 2012 recipient of the Outstanding Achievement Award for his leadership and many contributions to nuclear materials area.

Our nation needs to continue investing in research and development to enhance economic prosperity, energy security and US leadership. While researchers like Todd Allen and Kemal Pasamehmetoglu have come to the Idaho National Laboratory to use unique equipment and facilities to push nuclear technology forward, they are also leading teams of talented men and women to accelerate American innovation. It is appropriate that the American Nuclear Society has recognized Drs. Allen and Pasamehmetoglu for their technical contributions, and I would like to offer my own thanks to Todd and Kemal for their great work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and colleague, Leslie Barbour of the Nuclear Energy Institute, who will be retiring from NEI later this summer. In some circles, Leslie is known as the ``First Lady of Nuclear Energy'' and her presence and insights will be missed.

When I came to Congress sixteen years ago, I met Leslie Barbour for the first time. In many ways, Leslie is the face of the nuclear energy industry that many Members of Congress and congressional staff see the most. Whether it is in a meeting, at a hearing or a mark-up, Leslie Barbour is there on behalf of the nuclear industry.

Leslie is an extremely effective advocate for the nuclear energy industry and she has a unique ability to explain complex technological issues in understandable terms. Leslie is an educator and an advocate and she has created events like the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Summit that bring political leaders, nuclear industry officials and union representatives together to discuss the best strategies and options for moving nuclear energy forward.

As the representative of Idaho's Second Congressional District, I have the honor of representing the Idaho National Laboratory, the nation's lead lab for nuclear energy research and development. The Idaho National Laboratory and the Nuclear Energy Institute work very closely together, and over the years Leslie has organized tours of the lab and brought lab employees to Washington, DC to help educate policymakers on the benefits of nuclear power. Leslie is always looking for new ways to reach new audiences and educate new Members of Congress on the role nuclear energy plays in our nation's energy strategy.

In addition to her professional work, Leslie Barbour is also an active member of her community. For a number of years, Leslie has served on the Board of Directors of the Capitol Hill Group Ministries, a non-denominational organization that addresses the social needs of the men, women and children living near Capitol Hill. In fact, in recognition of her efforts, in 2011 Capitol Hill Group Ministries named Leslie the Volunteer of the Year.

After twenty years with the Nuclear Energy Institute, Leslie is retiring from NEI but she will still be active here in Washington, DC. It has been a joy to work with Leslie, and I wish her and her husband Gary all the best as they take on new challenges and new opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a dental health crisis in this country. In 2010, 181 million Americans didn't see a dentist. More than 50 percent of Americans over the age of 30 suffer from some form of periodontal disease, and estimates suggest that 25 percent of children under the age of 5 already have cavities.

It is time to take action. This is why the American Dental Association last year launched Action for Dental Health: Dentists Making a Difference, a nationwide, community-based movement focused on delivering care now to people already suffering from dental disease, strengthening and growing the public-private safety net to provide more care for more Americans, and bringing dental health education and disease prevention into underserved communities.

I urge all of my colleagues to read the Action for Dental Health One Year Report to Congress to learn more about this movement and its progress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Judy Sherman, a diligent and steadfast defender of oral health, on the occasion of her retirement from the American Dental Association, ADA, after more than 29 years.

Judy's singlehanded contributions to improving oral health in this country are far-reaching. Those who don't know her would be astounded after hearing her accomplishments, but those of us who do know her, and have seen her effectiveness first hand, understand how she has made such an impact.

She has made a career of fighting for dental priorities, like boosting dental residencies, and was instrumental in the ``Collins- Feingold'' law which funded special state dental projects and dental residencies. She played a central role in efforts to boost dental divisions and research across the spectrum, including at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Indian Health Service. She has been involved in nearly every issue impacting the oral health of our children at the federal level for the last several decades.

After graduating from the University of Michigan, Judy taught junior high school in Michigan for 12 years before coming to Washington, DC to work as a Legislative Aide to Senator Carl D. Pursell. She made her way to the ADA in 1985, and eventually rose to become ADA's Director of Congressional Affairs in 2007. She was also President of the Coalition for Health Funding, which works to strengthen public health investments.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and recognize the achievements and career of my good friend, Judy Sherman. I will miss her constant presence, and her unwavering and loyal support. The entire oral health community will miss her dedication and commitment. We all have a lot of work to do to fill her shoes. Though she is now going to be spending more time with her husband Brad, and her two Golden Retrievers, I hope and expect that we will still see her from time to time, walking the halls of Congress, and continuing to advocate for dentists and oral health.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Taylor Thomas on her achievement of being crowned the 2014-2015 Miss Indian World. The competition was recently held at the University of New Mexico Arena in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where each contestant was judged on public speaking, personal interview, traditional representation, and dance/essay.

Ms. Thomas resides in my congressional district at Fort Hall and is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. She qualified for the national competition by being named Miss Shoshone-Bannock Queen this past year. It is truly an honor for me to recognize Ms. Thomas for her national accomplishments and as a role model in the Fort Hall community. She will make an excellent representative of Native American culture throughout her tenure as Miss Indian World.

Not only is Ms. Thomas a respected ambassador of the Fort Hall community, but she also attends Idaho State University, where she is majoring in political science. I have no doubt that her commitment to higher education played an important role in the competition, as her personal interview was the strongest of any competitor. Ms. Thomas has also been an advocate for Native Youth programs and indigenous language preservation, which are important components of Shoshone-Bannock culture.

I wish Ms. Thomas well as she travels across the United States in her role as Miss Indian World. It is a great honor for the Fort Hall community, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and my congressional district to have such a talented young woman represent her community on a world stage.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

I thank both my friends from California for their attention to these issues. We have been discussing these issues with both of you and your concerns for some time now, and I look forward to exploring the issues further during a hearing and to working with the Government Accountability Office to provide further oversight on these programs.