[Pages H2710-H2727]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2016

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Pursuant to House
Resolution 223 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2028.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly resume the
chair.

[[Page H2711]]

{time} 1917

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2016, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren (Acting Chair) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee)
had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 29, line
4.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $167,050,000)''.
Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $167,050,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, over the next decade, the U.S. is set to
spend hundreds of billions of dollars operating and upgrading our
nuclear arsenal. But in this budget environment, every dollar we spend
to keep our outdated and oversized nuclear arsenal functioning is a
dollar we aren't spending on other priorities that keep us safe and
secure or on reducing our unsustainable debt and deficits. That is why
the amendment I am offering with Mr. Polis will put $167 million
towards deficit reduction by placing funding for the new nuclear-armed
cruise missile warhead back on its original 2015 acquisition schedule.
In the FY 2015 budget, production of the warhead was scheduled to
begin in 2027, but this year's budget request sped up the development
for the warhead by 2 years. This is despite the fact that the existing
air-launched cruise missile and warhead isn't being phased out until
the 2030s. And there is plenty of uncertainty about whether this
program is affordable or even necessary.
Chairman Simpson is so concerned about the cost of the warhead that
language was included in the E and W report to require a red team
assessment on the affordability of the program--and for good reason,
given our history of spending large amounts of money on warhead
programs that end up getting tabled.
Given the cost concerns over the program, does it really make sense
to rush the acquisition process?
Furthermore, as some experts note, there is no longer a need to shoot
nuclear cruise missiles from far away when we have the most advanced
bomber ever created in our arsenal, the B-2 stealth bomber, which is
capable of penetrating enemy airspace and dropping a nuclear bomb
directly above a target. And if we decide we want to shoot nuclear
missiles from thousands of miles away, we still have very expensive
submarines and very expensive ICBMs capable of doing just that.
So ask yourselves: Should we really be accelerating the development
of a warhead that goes on a missile we don't need and could cost
hundreds of millions, if not billions, more than anticipated?
I ask my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to maintain
funding at the program's FY 2015 acquisition schedule, and save the
taxpayers $167 million in the process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Ensuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons
stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. The
bill fully funds the $195 million needed to initiate a life extension
program for the W80 warhead, the only nuclear-tipped cruise missile in
the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The life extension program will replace
nonnuclear and other components to extend the life of the W80, and to
ensure it can be deployed on the Air Force's long-range stand off
cruise missile, or LRSO, should that program move forward.
The budget request was considered a 2-year acceleration of the LRSO
program, compared to last year's stockpile plan, to meet a defense
requirement for deployment in 2030. However, it is clear that there is
considerable planning that needs to be accomplished by the
administration before Congress can have confidence in these long-term
stockpile plans.
While 2030 may seem like many years away, these warheads are very
complex, and there is considerable amount of work to accomplish between
now and then. Performing additional work earlier in the schedule will
allow the NNSA to reduce technical risk and limit any cost growth. The
gentleman's amendment would slash funding for this effort, and that
will add additional risk and uncertainty to the schedule.
We must do the work that is needed to extend the life of this warhead
as long as there is a clear defense requirement for maintaining a
nuclear cruise missile capability. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect Chairman Simpson's request that
language be included in the E and W report to require a red team
assessment of the affordability of this program. All I am adding to
that is, if we have questions about the affordability of this program,
a program that is not going to take place for some time, do we really
want to accelerate the spending program?
In this budget environment, it does not make sense to accelerate the
development of a warhead while, at the same time, requiring an
assessment on its affordability. Why would we put more money into a
program that may end up getting tabled? Shouldn't we at least wait
until the release of the red team report before adjusting the
acquisition schedule?
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to please not traffic the well
while another Member is under recognition.
Mr. SIMPSON. Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
As I said, performing additional work earlier in the schedule will
allow the NNSA to reduce technical risk and limit any cost growth while
we are finding out about what the red team assessment comes up with. So
I think this is important that we defeat this amendment so that we can
move forward with modernization of this warhead.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $25,000,000)''.
Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we just heard Mr. Quigley and Mr.
Simpson in a debate about this very same issue, and I don't want to
cover the exact same ground, but I want to put this in the context of,
I think, a very

[[Page H2712]]

serious concern that all of us ought to have.
The rebuilding, or what is known as the life extension program for
our nuclear bombs, is but one small part, actually, one very large
part, but small in comparison to the total reconditioning, rebuilding
of our entire nuclear enterprise.
And when you consider the totality of what we are doing in this
appropriations bill and last night, when we took up the defense
authorization bill, you can only, and you must, come to the conclusion
that the United States is now involved in a very significant, total
restructuring and rebuilding of our entire nuclear deterrent system. It
is not just the six to seven different nuclear warheads that are going
to be rebuilt at a cost of several tens of billions of dollars; it is
also all of the delivery systems. We are, in fact, engaged in a new
nuclear arms race.
Now, many of us grew up in the sixties and seventies--fifties,
sixties, and seventies--and I think all of us have a memory of the arms
race and all of the drills, hiding underneath the table, all of that
trouble. I think we have a memory of what went on with the Cuban
Missile Crisis.
When you step back and look at what we are doing in the
appropriations bill before us as well as in the National Defense
Authorization Act, you must come to the conclusion that we are on the
path to spend $1 trillion over the next 25 to 30 years rebuilding the
entire nuclear enterprise. We have, in this bill, all of the nuclear
weapons.
In this one, we went from some $9 million last year for this W80 to
over $190 million in this bill. Yes, there are safeguards and, yes, we
ought to pull all of this money back until we decide how this fits into
the new cruise missile, the new long-range cruise missile replacing the
old variety.
That goes on the new stealth bomber, the LSRO, a new stealth bomber,
at $550 million a copy, more than half a billion dollars a plane. A
cruise missile, a new plane doing the exact same thing, and that is to
be added to a new Minuteman missile for the silos in the Midwest, the
upper Midwest, new Minuteman III missiles.
That will be added to the new submarines that are going out there
with new missiles and new warheads and, on top of that, some new
stealth technology that is going on that we really can't even talk
about.
But it is happening, $1 trillion in a nuclear arms race that is being
replicated by China and Russia, the United Kingdom and France.
What in the world is this world coming to?
This isn't Iran. Iran is a separate issue, significantly important,
but this is different. This is the major nuclear-armed countries in the
world, all of them, upgrading their nuclear systems.
We have the new bombs, new precision bombs. We have the new delivery
system, stealth. It is extraordinarily dangerous because the hair
trigger of the past and all of the rules of the past are now going to
be put aside, and now we have a really, really, fine hair trigger.

{time} 1930

You won't know but a few minutes ahead of time when it is incoming
because it is a stealth bomber or a cruise missile or even a hypersonic
missile. And suddenly, there you are; you have got seconds to make a
decision about whether you are going to annihilate the world or not.
How do you respond to this?
And you have got Russia over there talking about using a nuclear
weapon as a deterrent to reduce some sort of standard military
conflict. This is an extraordinarily dangerous situation.
I want to draw the attention of the entire House and use this
particular effort to reduce this account by $25 million. The gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), I think, had a better proposal, and that
is to reduce the whole thing.
But here we are. Pay attention, men and women of this House and of
the Senate. Pay attention to what the overarching issue is here. It is
the opening quarter of a new nuclear arms race among the great powers
of the world.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The bill fully funds the request of $195 million to initiate a life
extension program for the W80 warhead. The life extension program will
replace nonnuclear and other components to extend the life of the W80
and to ensure it can be deployed on the Air Force's Long-Range Standoff
cruise missile, or the LRSO, should that program move forward.
Certainly, the committee will look to realign the work that needs to
be done on the W80 if there are changes to the schedule for the LRSO.
But as long as that program stays on track, we need to make sure that
the work that needs to be done by the NNSA is properly aligned with
those efforts.
The gentleman's amendment would make it more difficult for the NNSA
to meet its schedule requirements, and I urge Members to oppose this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

(including rescission of funds)

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,918,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
provided by this Act for Project 99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility, and by prior Acts that remain
unobligated for such Project, may be made available only for
construction and program support activities for such Project.
Provided further, That of the unobligated balances from prior
year appropriations available under this heading, $10,394,000
is hereby rescinded: Provided further, That no amounts may be
rescinded from amounts that were designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to a concurrent
resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.

amendment offered by mr. fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 29, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $13,802,000) (increased by $10,000,000)
(increased by $3,802,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Nebraska and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is my understanding
that our chairman, Chairman Simpson, as well as Ranking Member Kaptur
actually support this amendment. I want to express my gratitude to the
chairman for working with me and thinking critically as to how we make
our nuclear nonproliferation architecture more robust.
What this amendment does is it moves $13.8 million from the mixed
oxide portion of our nonproliferation account over to the nuclear
smuggling and detection account and the research and development
account as well.
Nuclear smuggling and detection is an important part of our
nonproliferation regimen, and research and development into better
techniques to detect the illicit movement of fissile material or
technology has to be one of the more robust policy considerations
moving forward, not only in this appropriations bill but as a body
here, ensuring that we, again, are focused singularly on the
nonproliferation threats that are occurring throughout the world as
this technology spreads and as fissile material potentially becomes

[[Page H2713]]

more available to those who would use it for potentially great harm.
I also want, in the amendment, to point out why this money is taken
from the mixed oxide program.
Currently in the bill, we are spending about $345 million on this
program. But MOX is expensive, and its future is unclear. We have to
come to some policy decision here. We keep digging this hole and
digging this hole. This policy is adrift, and it is costing taxpayers a
great deal of money. It is not fair in terms of public policy. It is
not fair to taxpayers. It is not fair to the people of South Carolina
and Georgia because of this uncertainty.
So we need a decision here. If it is, No, we are not going to proceed
with MOX, then we have to develop an understanding of what we are going
to do with this material, whether it is blend it down or store it or
whether we need to rethink the entire public policy that led us to this
point, which is about 20 years old, and whether perhaps this ought to
become some sort of international consortium, for instance, to deal
with this particular issue and share in the cost.
If the answer is, Yes, we are going to proceed with MOX, then
spending $345 million a year to sort of keep it open, with a little bit
extra, and that cost to keep it open--to keep it in cold storage, as we
say--is approximately $200 million, so we throw in a little more on
top. It doesn't get us to final completion. It doesn't even really get
us on that road.
So the policy here is adrift, and we have got to come to some deeper
consideration as to what we are going to do.
The problem with MOX fundamentally is the initial cost was $1
billion. Now we are looking at $7 billion. The lifecycle costs are
skyrocketing. So some clear, deliberate decision. And if it is ``yes,''
we need to expedite this, and we need to do so in a cost-conscious
manner. If it is ``no,'' let's turn to other alternatives quickly so
that we can move more of these funds into the robust portions of our
nonproliferation regimen, our architecture to ensure that we bring down
the probability of a nuclear weapons explosion as close to zero as
possible, ensuring as well that we are keeping this material out of
others hands.
With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for taking up
this issue. The MOX facility lifecycle cost is now over $47 billion and
at the end of the day will not solve the problem.
The disposition of the unnecessary plutonium stock can be done in
other ways. We ought to set aside that money. You are quite correct to
put it into nonproliferation issues, trying to figure out where the
loose nukes might be around the world.
Mr. Chairman, I will draw your attention and the attention of the
gentlemen and gentlewomen here today that in yesterday's National
Defense Authorization Act, those facilities that sense the movement of
nuclear materials across borders, the in-place were withdrawn, taken
out. We ought to pay attention to that, put those back in in one more
piece.
I commend the gentleman for being right on. And we do need to sort
out the MOX facility and come to some conclusion; otherwise, we are in
a $47 billion rathole that won't solve the problem.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for trying to work with me. This
is a difficult position. The chairman has a very difficult task here of
balancing competing ends. I really appreciate the way in which he has
artfully drawn together an important bill here.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I
am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his efforts in
nonproliferation and his strong advocacy for this program and trying to
become the expert. And really, he is what I consider maybe one of the
foremost experts in the House on nonproliferation issues. I thank both
the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from California for their
efforts in this area.
It is a challenging issue for us. You know, I was interested to hear
the $47 billion because I have heard $31 billion. I have heard $30
billion. There are all sorts of different estimates, and we haven't got
the numbers of how they came to these conclusions. And when they look
to the alternatives in this report that just came out from the
Department, they said, if I remember correctly, the downblend
activities had a cost that was much less. But if you look at the
downblend alternatives, what they didn't add into it is that you would
put that material in WIPP theoretically.

First of all, you would have to get WIPP extended. It is supposed to
be closed. So you have got a 15-year extension of what you would have
to do. There was no cost in there for the operation of WIPP for those
15 years and what it was going to cost. So we are still having a hard
time coming to grips with what the actual cost of the different
alternatives are.
This is one of those things that it is frustrating for our committee,
I think, over the years for a lot of different things. Where we head
down one path, spend billions of dollars, and then all of a sudden,
change directions. And it seems like we are throwing money away.
But I am open to looking at what the alternatives are, and I want to
look at the numbers behind the report that came out. But this amendment
simply adds and reduces the defense nuclear nonproliferation account by
the same amount. Therefore, the language of the amendment doesn't
change the amounts directed specifically for the MOX project in the
House report, which will continue to be funded at $345 million.
But I understand both of your concerns. They are concerns I share.
And they are concerns we need to address because you are absolutely
right. If we are not going to go down this road, we shouldn't be
spending $345 million a year.
Now we are going to spend a bunch of money at the start. Even if you
close it down, it is going to cost some money, or if you stop it. So
all of that needs to be taken into consideration. But we need to make a
determination of what is going to happen with MOX and what we are going
to do with this additional plutonium.
Some people have suggested maybe the best thing to do is store it. Of
course that violates an agreement that we have with the Russians. So
you would have to get their agreement on that. So it is a challenging
issue, I will be the first to admit. And we have had a challenge in the
committee trying to deal with it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Idaho's concerns and
the way he is approaching it is really quite commendable and the right
way to go about it. Two studies have been done, the most recent dealing
with the $47 million. That speaks to the current MOX procedure and
process. The blending down, you have correctly analyzed the problem
there because it doesn't take into account the full cost, and then you
have still got to dispose of this stuff someplace.
There is also the vitrification of it, which is blending down,
putting it into a glass container, and then storing that. Those have
problems.
There is another option that will be analyzed and is coming out later
in this year, in September, and that is the use of a fast reactor to
actually burn the plutonium and, thereby, make it unusable for weapons.
It also would generate a significant amount of energy, which could
produce steam and electrical energy along the way. That study is coming
out later this year.
In the meantime, we ought to do what you are doing here, and that is,
just slow down, take a look at this.
And for those who are concerned about the jobs in the Savannah River
area, a lot of this work can be done there in any one of these options.
Just don't do something that doesn't work, which is the current process
underway. So you could do a fast reactor there. Use that as a method of
consuming the plutonium and rendering it unuseful.
There are many different ways to do it. But we are headed down a
rathole. Slow down. Stop.

[[Page H2714]]

I commend both the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from
Idaho for where they are going on this. Carry on.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from California. And I thank the
gentleman from Nebraska, again, for his efforts in this area. I know it
is a matter of both urgency to the United States and to the world,
actually. But I thank the gentleman for his efforts in this arena, and
continue on.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Again, let me just reiterate my deep thanks to the
chairman for his leadership on this. This is a tough one, and he is
working aggressively to try to get to the heart of a prudential and
good decision.
Let me thank, again, the gentleman from California for his insights
and participation as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 29, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.
Page 31, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $105,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I want to raise an issue along the lines
of my earlier discussion and part of what we just heard in the previous
discussion. That is, where are we going with the nuclear enterprise?
What is it all about? Where will it take us?
My personal view is that we are in the first quarter of a new nuclear
arms race. This amendment deals with a critical part of that effort to
rebuild the nuclear weapons systems of the United States.
We currently have maybe 10,000 unused nuclear plutonium pits. This is
the heart of a nuclear bomb. It is pure plutonium, and it is the heart
of the bomb.
The 10,000 that are not used came out of nuclear weapons that have
been dismantled as a result of the various arms control treaties that
have been in place over the last 30 years, all to the good. The MOX
facility deals with that unused excess plutonium and others. But this
amendment deals with the notion of rebuilding and increasing the
capacity of the United States to produce new plutonium pits.

{time} 1945

We presently have the capacity to produce somewhere between 5 and 10
plutonium pits, again, the heart of a nuclear weapon, in the existing
facilities. We are going to spend a few billion dollars--unknown--but
somewhere probably between $1 billion and $2 billion or $3 billion
building the facilities to increase the capacity to manufacture these
plutonium pits to 50 to 80 a year.
Now, testimony that we have received in the Strategic Forces
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee indicates that
nobody knows what you are going to do with them or whether you even
need the pits, but they want to build the facility just in case.
You go: Wait a minute, you have 10,000 out there; what are you going
to do? Why are you doing this?
It has never been answered other than: Well, we might need it some
day.
Well, God willing, we will never need it some day. Five to 10 a year,
more than we need, 50 to 80, the military doesn't know what to do with
it; the NNSA doesn't know what to do with it, but they want to build
the manufacturing facility even so.
This amendment simply says let's take $125 million of that and apply
it to something useful like cleaning up what is going on out there.
Just keep in mind that we are talking about an enormous amount of money
here for the production or the manufacturing facilities of these pits.
It is not just the facility for the plutonium, but it is also for the
rest of the bombs, so it is probably going to be well over $10 billion
by the time we finish, and then you have the operating costs, if we
ever operate at all. Be careful here. We are into a massive expenditure
of over $1 trillion over the next 20 to 25 years.
I have asked the military: Tell us how we are going to spend that.
They say: Well, we really don't know.
They gave me a document that is a bunch of equations with no
explanation of what the factors are. I am asking for information. I was
shut down in committee yesterday, but we all ought to demand
information.
What is going on here? What are we talking about? A new long-range
stealth bomber to replace the B-2, new cruise missiles, new submarines,
new missiles for land and sea, and new warheads to go on top of it;
and, all the while, other countries are trying to match us. It is a
nuclear arms race well underway.
Are we causing it? We are clearly part of it. Russia and China are
also involved in this and matching technology, spending a vast amount
of money. Just think what we could do if we took one-quarter of that
and spent it on education. What could we do for the American people? I
think I hear the knock-knock of time having run out, and that frightens
me because time is running out on this issue, and we need to pay
attention here.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Simpson and his committee for paying
attention to all of this.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Could I just ask for clarification? Which of your
amendments are you addressing in your arguments now? It was our
understanding the gentleman was addressing the MOX facility. Are you
addressing that or your prior amendment?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I am addressing the facilities, the nuclear pit
facilities, the plutonium pit facilities. It is $125 million. The MOX
was my colleague from Nebraska's amendment. That was his amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment you are speaking to on the
pit production is an end of the bill amendment, and we are not yet at
the end of the bill.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. So I can come back and do it again?
Mr. SIMPSON. There you go. The amendment that was reported by the
Clerk was the MOX facility that took $125 million out of the MOX
facility.
Mr. GARAMENDI. That is correct.
Mr. SIMPSON. That was the amendment that was reported by the Clerk.
Mr. GARAMENDI. That is what I was speaking to.
Mr. SIMPSON. You have another amendment that deals with pit
production?
Mr. GARAMENDI. If I can go back and talk about the MOX facility now.
I stand corrected.
The 125 was the MOX facility amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Our arguments and the debate that we just had with the
gentleman from Nebraska about the MOX facility and the challenges that
we face in the MOX facility is the same as the debate we just had, and
while we asked for the Department to look at the two alternatives, the
downblend and the continuing MOX, the Armed Services Committee asked
for a report on all five of the alternatives that they were looking at
and the cost and stuff.
I would oppose this amendment of taking $125 million out of the MOX
facility.
Mr. CLYBURN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, if we are, in fact, about to entertain the
MOX amendment, I would love to speak in opposition to that amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. This is the amendment that has been reported.

[[Page H2715]]

Mr. GARAMENDI. If the gentleman would yield for 15 seconds, I will
explain the error, and then I will be out of the way.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Quite correct, there was an error on my part.
This is the question of the MOX facility, $125 million to be applied
to other cleanup programs across the Nation. That is it. I spoke on a
different issue, and the MOX facility came up earlier.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment. I do
so because I really believe that this amendment would endanger our
national security by making harmful cuts to the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility that is located in South Carolina.
This facility will be used to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons
grade plutonium according to binding international agreements
originally signed back in 2000 and reaffirmed in 2010. Most of the
plutonium has already been transferred to the Savannah River site, and
it is there awaiting disposition through the MOX facility.
The President has requested the level of funding included in this
bill to continue construction. The facility is over 65 percent complete
and supports over 1,500 highly skilled jobs. Any further delay will
jeopardize our international agreements and will abandon commitments
that the country has made to the State of South Carolina when we signed
and agreed to house these dangerous materials for our Nation.
I want to close by saying South Carolina has developed what I call a
level of tolerance for nuclear. It didn't get there, as we say down in
Gullah Geechee country, just by itself. We got there because of the
commitment we made to this Nation years ago with the Manhattan Project.
I believe the State of South Carolina and the Savannah River site
have made significant commitments to helping secure this Nation. I
believe we would be breaking faith with the State to cripple this
effort at this time because it is an agreement, the agreements are
international, and I think we have a commitment to the State of South
Carolina to continue the movement on this project.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be opposed.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Latta).
Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which has
jurisdiction over the NRC, our committee has taken a close look at the
regulatory priorities and resource needs of the commission.
The Energy and Power Subcommittee oversees nuclear energy, and the
Environment and Economy Subcommittee has oversight on nuclear waste. I
serve on both subcommittees.
In both committee and subcommittees, we have held hearings in recent
years with the commissioners on the NRC, as well as other experts and
stakeholders. In these hearings, we have learned important facts such
as, while the Nation's fleet of nuclear reactors continues to operate
safely, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the NRC's budget exceeds
what is reasonably necessary in light of current regulatory and
licensing needs. We have further learned that--and the NRC Chairman
recently acknowledged--the NRC budget needs to be right-sized to some
degree.
We have also focused on the fact that, unlike most other Federal
agencies, 90 percent of the NRC's budget is recovered through fees on
nuclear licensees, which are eventually paid through electric rates.
This means that an outsized NRC budget is actually paid for by the
American people, both through their taxes and their electric rates. We
have also seen recent closures of nuclear power plants in the United
States and fewer new plants coming online than anticipated a decade
ago. In fact, even though the number of nuclear plants is currently
decreasing, the NRC budget has increased substantially compared to 10
years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee and
the chairman for acting to provide a level of appropriations for the
NRC that is appropriate under the circumstances. This budget gives the
NRC all it needs to ensure the safe operation of the Nation's nuclear
fleet without asking taxpayers and electricity ratepayers to pay more
than is necessary.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his interest in this subject.
I can assure you that the subcommittee is very concerned also, and we
look forward to working with you and your committees as we try to
right-size the NRC and all of the budgets that we will be doing in the
future.
As you said, the NRC is well aware of the fact that they need to
right-size themselves as they try to attempt to implement their Project
Aim 2020, so I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Naval Reactors

For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval
reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or
otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment,
facilities, and facility expansion, $1,320,394,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That $43,500,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2017, for program direction.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,426,400).''
Page 30, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,500,000).''

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Rhode Island and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would support beginning an
assessment of the feasibility of using low-enriched uranium in naval
reactor fuel that would meet military requirements.
Using low-enriched uranium in naval reactor fuel could yield
significant potential national security benefits related to nuclear
nonproliferation, could lower security costs, and supports naval
reactor research and development at the cutting edge of nuclear
science.
As we continue to face the threat of nuclear terrorism and as
countries continue to develop naval fuel for military purposes, the
imperative to reduce the use of highly enriched uranium will become
increasingly important over the next several decades. This is the time
to begin investments in new technologies to address proliferation
threats and to reduce reliance on highly enriched uranium.
R&D on LEU for naval reactors would also support continued R&D within
Naval Reactors at the cutting edge of nuclear science and engineering,
which remains a critical capability. The Naval Reactors director
Admiral Richardson testified on March 24, 2015, before the House Armed
Services Committee that, with current technology, using low-enriched
uranium fuel would only be feasible for aircraft carriers and would
require an additional refueling at a cost of $1 billion.
He added, however:

The potential exists that we could develop an advanced fuel
system that might increase uranium loading and make low-
enriched uranium possible while still meeting very rigorous
performance requirements for naval reactors on nuclear-
powered warships.

Mr. Chairman, this $2.5 million in funding would support early
testing and manufacturing development required to advance LEU
technology for use in naval fuel. Such a program, if

[[Page H2716]]

successful, could yield significant benefits for nuclear
nonproliferation and yield security cost savings.
Mr. Chairman, it sounds like we have broad-based support for this
amendment. I urge acceptance of this amendment in order to start this
very important effort, and I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2000

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Federal Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for Federal Salaries and Expenses in
the National Nuclear Security Administration, $388,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2017, including
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$12,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Defense Environmental Cleanup

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any
real property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of
not to exceed one fire apparatus pumper truck and one armored
vehicle for replacement only, $5,055,550,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of such amount
$281,951,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for
program direction.

Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning

(including transfer of funds)

For an additional amount for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup activities for Department of Energy
contributions for uranium enrichment decontamination and
decommissioning activities, $471,797,000, to be deposited
into the Defense Environmental Cleanup account which shall be
transferred to the ``Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund''.

Other Defense Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense,
other defense activities, and classified activities, in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, $767,570,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of such amount, $253,729,000 shall
be available until September 30, 2017, for program direction.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Bonneville Power Administration Fund

Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
the Shoshone Paiute Trout Hatchery, the Spokane Tribal
Hatchery, the Snake River Sockeye Weirs and, in addition, for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $5,000: Provided, That during fiscal year 2016,
no new direct loan obligations may be made.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

For expenses necessary for operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and for marketing electric
power and energy, including transmission wheeling and
ancillary services, pursuant to section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southeastern power area, $6,900,000, including official
reception and representation expenses in an amount not to
exceed $1,500, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944, up to $6,900,000 collected by the
Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of power and
related services shall be credited to this account as
discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual
expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses
shall be reduced as collections are received during the
fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016
appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$66,500,000 collected by the Southeastern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

For expenses necessary for operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and for marketing electric
power and energy, for construction and acquisition of
transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities,
and for administrative expenses, including official reception
and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500
in carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944
(16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power
Administration, $47,361,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s),
up to $35,961,000 collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at
not more than $11,400,000: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $63,000,000 collected
by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant to the
Flood Control Act of 1944 to recover purchase power and
wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections, to remain available until expended
for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures: Provided further, That, for purposes of this
appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are
generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred
(excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration

For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, $307,714,000,
including official reception and representation expenses in
an amount not to exceed $1,500, to remain available until
expended, of which $302,000,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the
Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a),
up to $214,342,000 collected by the Western Area Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at
not more than $93,372,000, of which $87,658,000 is derived
from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $352,813,000 collected
by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant to the
Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project Act of
1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That, for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$4,490,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255):
Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of that Act and
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $4,262,000 collected by the Western
Area Power Administration from the sale of power and related
services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall be credited
to this account as discretionary offsetting collections, to
remain available until expended for the sole purpose of
funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities
of these Dams and associated Western Area Power
Administration activities: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at
not more than $228,000: Provided further, That for purposes
of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures
that are generally recovered in the same year that they are
incurred: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2016, the
Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration may
accept up to $460,000 in funds contributed by United States
power customers of the Falcon and Amistad Dams for deposit
into the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund,
and such funds shall be available for

[[Page H2717]]

the purpose for which contributed in like manner as if said
sums had been specifically appropriated for such purpose:
Provided further, That any such funds shall be available
without further appropriation and without fiscal year
limitation for use by the Commissioner of the United States
Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission
for the sole purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing,
rehabilitating, replacing, or upgrading the hydroelectric
facilities at these Dams in accordance with agreements
reached between the Administrator, Commissioner, and the
power customers.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, official reception
and representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, and the
hire of passenger motor vehicles, $319,800,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, not to exceed $319,800,000 of
revenues from fees and annual charges, and other services and
collections in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and used
for expenses necessary in this account, and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as
revenues are received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result
in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the general
fund estimated at not more than $0.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

(including transfer and rescissions of funds)

Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made
available by this title for the Department of Energy shall be
used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity
or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar
arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for
Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a
program, project, or activity if the program, project, or
activity has not been funded by Congress.
(b)(1) Unless the Secretary of Energy notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress at
least 3 full business days in advance, none of the funds made
available in this title may be used to--
(A) make a grant allocation or discretionary grant award
totaling $1,000,000 or more;
(B) make a discretionary contract award or Other
Transaction Agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more, including
a contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
(C) issue a letter of intent to make an allocation, award,
or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph (A) or
(B); or
(D) announce publicly the intention to make an allocation,
award, or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph
(A) or (B).
(2) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 15 days
of the conclusion of each quarter a report detailing each
grant allocation or discretionary grant award totaling less
than $1,000,000 provided during the previous quarter.
(3) The notification required by paragraph (1) and the
report required by paragraph (2) shall include the recipient
of the award, the amount of the award, the fiscal year for
which the funds for the award were appropriated, the account
and program, project, or activity from which the funds are
being drawn, the title of the award, and a brief description
of the activity for which the award is made.
(c) The Department of Energy may not, with respect to any
program, project, or activity that uses budget authority made
available in this title under the heading ``Department of
Energy--Energy Programs'', enter into a multiyear contract,
award a multiyear grant, or enter into a multiyear
cooperative agreement unless--
(1) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is funded
for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time
of award; or
(2) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement includes
a clause conditioning the Federal Government's obligation on
the availability of future year budget authority and the
Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress at least 3 days in advance.
(d) Except as provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g),
the amounts made available by this title shall be expended as
authorized by law for the programs, projects, and activities
specified in the ``Bill'' column in the ``Department of
Energy'' table included under the heading ``Title III--
Department of Energy'' in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations accompanying this Act.
(e) The amounts made available by this title may be
reprogrammed for any program, project, or activity, and the
Department shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress at least 30 days prior to the use of
any proposed reprogramming that would cause any program,
project, or activity funding level to increase or decrease by
more than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, during
the time period covered by this Act.
(f) None of the funds provided in this title shall be
available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates, initiates, or eliminates a program, project,
or activity;
(2) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act; or
(3) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
(g)(1) The Secretary of Energy may waive any requirement or
restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds
made available for the Department of Energy if compliance
with such requirement or restriction would pose a substantial
risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national
security.
(2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of any waiver under
paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but not later than 3
days after the date of the activity to which a requirement or
restriction would otherwise have applied. Such notice shall
include an explanation of the substantial risk under
paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver.
Sec. 302. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be available to the
same appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with
funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter
may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as
originally enacted.
Sec. 303. Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or
made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2016 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
Sec. 304. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for the construction of facilities classified
as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830
unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of
Independent Enterprise Assessments to ensure the project is
in compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
Sec. 305. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical
decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any
successive departmental guidance, for construction projects
where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a
separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the
project for that critical decision.
Sec. 306. Notwithstanding section 301(c) of this Act, none
of the funds made available under the heading ``Department of
Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be used for a
multiyear contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other
Transaction Agreement of $1,000,000 or less unless the
contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction
Agreement is funded for the full period of performance as
anticipated at the time of award.
Sec. 307. (a) None of the funds made available in this or
any prior Act under the heading ``Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation'' may be made available to enter into new
contracts with, or new agreements for Federal assistance to,
the Russian Federation.
(b) The Secretary of Energy may waive the prohibition in
subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that such activity
is in the national security interests of the United States.
This waiver authority may not be delegated.
(c) A waiver under subsection (b) shall not be effective
until 15 days after the date on which the Secretary submits
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress, in classified form if necessary, a report on the
justification for the waiver.
Sec. 308. (a) Notification of Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Drawdown.--None of the funds made available by this Act or
any prior Act, or funds made available in the SPR Petroleum
Account, may be used to conduct a drawdown (including a test
drawdown) and sale or exchange of petroleum products from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve unless the Secretary of Energy
provides notice, in accordance with subsection (b), of such
exchange, or drawdown (including a test drawdown) to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
(b)(1) Content of notification.--The notification required
under subsection (a) shall include at a minimum--
(A) the justification for the drawdown or exchange,
including--
(i) a specific description of any obligation under
international energy agreements; and
(ii) in the case of a test drawdown, the specific aspects
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be tested;
(B) the provisions of law (including regulations)
authorizing the drawdown or exchange;
(C) the number of barrels of petroleum products proposed to
be withdrawn or exchanged;
(D) the location of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve site or
sites from which the petroleum products are proposed to be
withdrawn;
(E) a good faith estimate of the expected proceeds from the
sale of the petroleum products;
(F) an estimate of the total inventories of petroleum
products in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve after the
anticipated drawdown;

[[Page H2718]]

(G) a detailed plan for disposition of the proceeds after
deposit into the SPR Petroleum Account; and
(H) a plan for refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
including whether the acquisition will be of the same or a
different petroleum product.
(2) Timing of notification.--The Secretary shall provide
the notification required under subsection (a)--
(A) in the case of an exchange or a drawdown, as soon as
practicable after the exchange or drawdown has occurred; and
(B) in the case of a test drawdown, not later than 30 days
prior to the test drawdown.
(c) Post-sale Notification.--In addition to reporting
requirements under other provisions of law, the Secretary
shall, upon the execution of all contract awards associated
with a competitive sale of petroleum products, notify the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of
the actual value of the proceeds from the sale.
(d)(1) New regional reserves.--The Secretary may not
establish any new regional petroleum product reserve unless
funding for the proposed regional petroleum product reserve
is explicitly requested in advance in an annual budget
submission and approved by the Congress in an appropriations
Act.
(2) The budget request or notification shall include--
(A) the justification for the new reserve;
(B) a cost estimate for the establishment, operation, and
maintenance of the reserve, including funding sources;
(C) a detailed plan for operation of the reserve, including
the conditions upon which the products may be released;
(D) the location of the reserve; and
(E) the estimate of the total inventory of the reserve.
Sec. 309. Of the amounts made available by this Act for
``National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons
Activities'', up to $50,000,000 may be reprogrammed within
such account for Domestic Uranium Enrichment, subject to the
notice requirement in section 301(e).
Sec. 310. (a) Unobligated balances available from
appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2010 are hereby
permanently rescinded from the following accounts of the
Department of Energy in the specified amounts:
(1) ``Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy'', $16,677,000.
(2) ``Energy Programs--Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability'', $900,000.
(3) ``Energy Programs--Nuclear Energy'', $1,665,000.
(4) ``Energy Programs--Fossil Energy Research and
Development'', $12,064,000.
(5) ``Energy Programs--Science'', $4,717,000.
(6) ``Power Marketing Administrations--Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration'', $4,832,000.
(b) No amounts may be rescinded by this section from
amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.

TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965,
notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, and for expenses necessary
for the Federal Co-Chairman and the Alternate on the
Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment of the Federal
share of the administrative expenses of the Commission,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire
of passenger motor vehicles, $95,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $29,900,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2017.

Delta Regional Authority

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Delta Regional Authority and
to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections
382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, $12,000,000,
to remain available until expended.

Denali Commission

For expenses necessary for the Denali Commission including
the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment as necessary and other expenses,
$10,000,000, to remain available until expended,
notwithstanding the limitations contained in section 306(g)
of the Denali Commission Act of 1998: Provided, That funds
shall be available for construction projects in an amount not
to exceed 80 percent of total project cost for distressed
communities, as defined by section 307 of the Denali
Commission Act of 1998 (division C, title III, Public Law
105-277), as amended by section 701 of appendix D, title VII,
Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-280), and an amount not
to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.

Northern Border Regional Commission

For expenses necessary for the Northern Border Regional
Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle
V of title 40, United States Code, $3,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall
be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding
section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

For expenses necessary for the Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle
V of title 40, United States Code, $250,000, to remain
available until expended.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, $1,003,233,000, including official
representation expenses not to exceed $25,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $25,000,000 shall be
derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That of the
amount appropriated herein, not more than $9,500,000 may be
made available for salaries, travel, and other support costs
for the Office of the Commission, to remain available until
September 30, 2017, of which, notwithstanding section
201(a)(2)(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5841(a)(2)(c)), the use and expenditure shall only be
approved by a majority vote of the Commission: Provided
further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$862,274,000 in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and used
for necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues
received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result in a final
fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at not more than
$140,959,000: Provided further, That of the amounts
appropriated under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for
university research and development in areas relevant to
their respective organization's mission, and $5,000,000 shall
be for a Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program that
will support multiyear projects that do not align with
programmatic missions but are critical to maintaining the
discipline of nuclear science and engineering.

office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $12,136,000, to remain available until September 30,
2017: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$10,060,000 in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and be
available until September 30, 2017, for necessary salaries
and expenses in this account, notwithstanding section 3302 of
title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of
revenues received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result in
a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at not more
than $2,076,000: Provided further, That of the amounts
appropriated under this heading, $958,000 shall be for
Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board, which shall not be available from fee revenues.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $3,600,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2017.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects

For expenses necessary for the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, $1,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That
any fees, charges, or commissions received pursuant to
section 106(h) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (15
U.S.C. 720d(h)) in fiscal year 2016 in excess of $2,402,000
shall not be available for obligation until appropriated in a
subsequent Act of Congress.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Sec. 401. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall comply
with the July 5, 2011, version of Chapter VI of its Internal
Commission Procedures when responding to Congressional
requests for information.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
Sec. 502. (a) None of the funds made available in title III
of this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government, except
pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided
in this Act or any other appropriations Act for any fiscal
year, transfer authority referenced in the report of the
Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, or any
authority whereby a department, agency, or instrumentality of
the United States Government may provide goods or services to
another department, agency, or instrumentality.

[[Page H2719]]

(b) None of the funds made available for any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government
may be transferred to accounts funded in title III of this
Act, except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer
authority provided in this Act or any other appropriations
Act for any fiscal year, transfer authority referenced in the
report of the Committee on Appropriations accompanying this
Act, or any authority whereby a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another department, agency, or
instrumentality.
(c) The head of any relevant department or agency funded in
this Act utilizing any transfer authority shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
semiannual report detailing the transfer authorities, except
for any authority whereby a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another department, agency, or
instrumentality, used in the previous 6 months and in the
year-to-date. This report shall include the amounts
transferred and the purposes for which they were transferred,
and shall not replace or modify existing notification
requirements for each authority.
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of
February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations).
Sec. 504. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to conduct closure of adjudicatory functions,
technical review, or support activities associated with the
Yucca Mountain geologic repository license application, or
for actions that irrevocably remove the possibility that
Yucca Mountain may be a repository option in the future.
Sec. 505. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to further implementation of the coastal and marine
spatial planning and ecosystem-based management components of
the National Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order
13547 of July 19, 2010.

spending reduction account

Sec. 506. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McKinley

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to transform the National Energy Technology
Laboratory into a government-owned, contractor-operated
laboratory, or to consolidate or close the National Energy
Technology Laboratory.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from West Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, there have been efforts to privatize and
consolidate the National Energy Technology Laboratory, also known to us
as NETL. This amendment is offered to eliminate that uncertainty of
privatization and to continue the present public-private partnership.
NETL is our Nation's premier energy laboratory for fossil energy,
using 600 government scientists, technicians, and employees, but they
couple that with nearly 1,200 private sector contractors. Through this
partnership, NETL has developed breakthrough research, carbon capture,
enhanced natural gas exploration and production, emission control for
our power plants, and steam and gas turbine efficiency.
Having NETL government owned and operated also maintains that the
research that they produce will not be proprietary and is available to
all utility companies. Small utility companies in rural America where I
come from would potentially suffer the most from a move towards
privatization, and they would no longer be able to perform this
research and be forced to buy the new technologies at very high costs.
Mr. Chairman, who would end up paying these high costs? The limited
customers of these small companies through higher electric bills.
People looking to privatize and consolidate these laboratories seem
to be searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's
amendment.
This amendment would prevent the Department from transforming the
National Energy Technology Laboratory into a government-owned,
contractor-operated laboratory, or to consolidate or close NETL.
NETL does important research in support of a balanced energy
portfolio that will increase the efficiency and safe usage of abundant
natural resources in this Nation.
I appreciate my colleague's passion for this issue, and I have no
objection to this amendment being included in the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Babin

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act
under the heading ``Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'' may be
made available to enter into new contracts with, or new
agreements for Federal assistance to the Islamic Republic of
Iran except for contracts or agreements that require the
Islamic Republic of Iran to cease the pursuit, acquisition,
and development of nuclear weapons technology.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that I strongly
support programs and operations that are funded by the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation section of the underlying bill.
Keeping loose nuclear materials--especially from places like the
former Soviet Union states--out of the hands of America's enemies is
one of the most important duties of the Department of Energy and the
Federal Government as a whole. That being said, Congress has the
obligation to set requirements and criteria for every dollar of
taxpayer money that we spend, especially funds that are sent or used
overseas. In fact, my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee
already exercised this judgment with an additional provision in their
bill that is very similar to the amendments that I will be offering
today.
Section 307 of the underlying bill specifically prohibits any DOE
nonproliferation funds from being used to enter into new contracts or
agreements with Russia, sending a strong signal to Mr. Putin and others
that there are real consequences for their irresponsible and
destabilizing actions of the last few years.
My amendment adds this section to the end of the bill:
``None of the funds made available in this Act under the heading
`Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation' may be made available to enter into
new contracts with, or new agreements for Federal assistance to the
Islamic Republic of Iran except for contracts or agreements that
require the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease the pursuit, acquisition,
and development of nuclear weapons technology.''
If the last line of my amendment sounds familiar, it should. It is
the very same language that Congress defined as total disarmament of
Iran's weapons of mass destruction program when it passed the
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of
2010. That bill passed the Senate by a vote of 99-0 and in the House
408-8, and only two of the Members who voted ``no'' on that bill still
serve here in Congress today.
There is a lot to be worried about in President Obama's deal with
Iran, but two serious concerns trump all of the others:
First, how will Iran properly deal with and dispose of 14,000
centrifuges

[[Page H2720]]

and 9,700 kilograms of highly enriched uranium that they are supposed
to give up?
And if they are serious about not pursuing a bomb, what are they
planning to do with the 6,000 centrifuges and 300 kilograms of uranium
that they get to keep under this deal?
On the first question, the Web site Vox, hardly a rightwing outlet,
says that the disposal of these materials is an open question and that
the negotiators punted on how to safely and effectively remove this
material from Iran. Given that fact, there is every reason to believe
that the DOE nonproliferation account could be used for this purpose.
The second question is even more troubling than the first. Michael
Morrell, former Director of the CIA, said back in February that ``the
potential Iran nuclear agreement would limit Iran to the number of
centrifuges needed for a weapon but too few for a nuclear power
program,'' a statement verified as ``true'' by PolitiFact.

{time} 2015

Iran's leaders have repeatedly said they have no interest in
developing a nuclear weapon, and over the years, they have made that
promise to the international community to gain relief from crippling
economic sanctions. I don't trust Iran, but even if I did, I would
still say that we follow President Reagan's charge that led us to
victory when facing another nuclear foe: trust but verify.
Let me be clear. If Iran proves that they are serious about giving up
all of their nuclear ambitions, I fully support using DOE
nonproliferation assets to get their nuclear materials safely out of
that country. Why, I would write a check myself to make sure that my
grandkids don't grow up in a world where loose Iranian nuclear material
makes its way to the black market or into the hands of terrorists.
But Iran can't have one without the other. That is why my amendment
will make sure that, if DOE signs a contract with Iran to help remove
nuclear material from Iran, it will also stipulate that they are giving
up all efforts to build a bomb.
This is a commonsense amendment that reiterates the position of
Congress and the promises made by President Obama's negotiating team. I
urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I share a great desire to
prevent the spread of Iran's nuclear capabilities, but the only thing
that, unfortunately, your amendment does is endanger security,
including America's security.
We can differ on how we work with Iran on the broader issue of
conditions for an agreement on sanctions and their nuclear program, but
that is not the issue we are debating here today. What we are debating
here today is the nonproliferation program at the Department of Energy.
Stopping the spread of dangerous materials from the Republic of Iran is
in our Nation's interest regardless of the outcome of the broader
discussion.
While there are currently no plans to work in Iran and no funding
that directly supports work in Iran, let me give you a few examples of
what your amendment would stop, would preclude:
One, the Department of Energy's nonproliferation program might be
asked to engage with Iran to facilitate the removal of excess low-
enriched uranium or heavy water from Iran. Such an engagement could
necessitate contracts to arrange for the packaging, shipment, and
disposition of such materials and would be prevented by the proposed
amendment.
Second, the Department of Energy's nonproliferation program might
also be asked to engage with Iran to strengthen Iran's nuclear safety,
nuclear security, or nuclear safeguard practices. Such engagement could
require contracts to provide technical expertise or support logistical
arrangements and would be prevented by your amendment.
There may be some who want to use any bill, including our bill, to
make political points, but shouldn't we be more concerned about
endangering American lives and the lives of other innocents around the
world? Wouldn't you prefer that this material be under lock and key in
the United States, for example, or with one of our allies than have it
stored in Iran? I can only speculate that our security practices are
much better.
This amendment has no place in this bill, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would still earnestly urge an ``aye''
vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Babin

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Committee call up amendment
No. 4.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act
under the heading ``Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'' may be
used to enter into new contracts with, or new agreements for
Federal assistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran except for
contracts or agreements that include authority for the
International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct anytime,
anywhere inspections of civil and military sites within the
Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from Texas and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BABIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BABIN. My amendment is similar in nature to the one just offered,
and I want to ensure that my strong support for the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation Program and the good work of the committee to properly
fund it is, once again, reflected in the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this second amendment to the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill to make clear to Iran and to the world that the
complete, intrusive inspections of all Iran civil and military sites
are nonnegotiable and must be part of any deal with Iran.
My amendment adds this section to the end of the bill: ``None of the
funds made available in this Act under the heading `Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation' may be made available to enter into new contracts
with or new agreements for Federal assistance to the Islamic Republic
of Iran except for contracts or agreements that include authority for
the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct anytime, anywhere
inspections of civil and military sites within the Islamic Republic of
Iran.''
I was encouraged to see Energy Secretary Moniz, President Obama's
chief technical expert in the Iran negotiations, quoted as saying: ``We
expect to have anywhere, anytime access'' to conduct nuclear
inspections of Iran.
I share his view that without these full, intrusive inspections there
is simply no way to fully and truly verify that Iran is complying with
the terms of any deal they supposedly agree to.
Unfortunately, the Iranians do not share the views of our Secretary.
Shortly after the Secretary made these comments to Bloomberg News,
Iranian Brigadier General Hossein Salami responded by saying:
``Not only will we not grant foreigners the permission to inspect our
military sites, we will not even give them permission to think about
such a subject. They will not even be permitted to inspect the most
normal military site in their dreams.''
Apologists for Iran say that they just need to say these types of
things, as well as maintain a limited nuclear stockpile, in order to
save face and preserve their national pride.
Mr. Chairman, I didn't come here to help the Iranians with their PR
efforts. Neither did you, and neither did anyone in this body. Our job
is to keep the

[[Page H2721]]

American people and the free world safe, and any deal with Iran that
lifts sanctions but is not coupled with strict inspection requirements
isn't just not worth the paper it is written on; it will make us less
safe.
History can be our guide on this very subject. In one of his biggest
but least discussed foreign policy failures, President Clinton in 1994
made a similar ``deal'' with North Korea that was supposed to end their
nuclear ambitions and bring them into the international community.
Sanctions were lifted, but we were given nothing but mischief and
deception by the North Koreans in return. International inspectors were
obstructed and blocked on a regular basis. North Korea continued to
develop their nuclear program, only now in the shadows and in hardened,
underground facilities. In 2006, they successfully detonated a nuclear
bomb, and they continue to develop and test long-range missiles and to
threaten their neighbors and the West. Instead of weakening the
authoritarian regime that controls North Korea, the lifting of the
sanctions and the development of nuclear weapons allowed the Kims to
tighten their grip on the country and pass it along to the next
generation.
Congress cannot allow President Obama's flawed deal on Iran to take
us down this same path.
Once again, if we are going to use DOE resources and taxpayer money
to help Iran clean up the mess created by their nuclear ambitions, it
should come with conditions. The most important condition should be
that they permit the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct the
anytime, anywhere inspections that are so essential to any nuclear
reduction agreement.
History and our own Energy Secretary tell us that this deal won't
work without robust and full inspections. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this
amendment to make sure that those inspections do happen.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
The amendment requires a new determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair finds that this amendment includes language
requiring a new determination as to the meaning of inspections that
qualify as ``anytime, anywhere.''
The proponent has failed to fulfill his burden as to the meaning of
that term.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hudson

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I call up the Hudson amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Each amount made available by this Act is
hereby reduced by 11.1208 percent.
(b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to
amounts under the headings ``National Nuclear Security
Administration'', ``Environmental and Other Defense
Activities'', or ``Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, this evening, I offer an amendment to the
Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would cut spending back to
the fiscal year 2008 level.
While I appreciate the work of the Appropriations Committee in
crafting this important bill, I recognize that we should go further to
cut reckless spending. Washington has a spending problem, and we can't
afford to kick the can down the road any longer.
My amendment makes an across-the-board cut of more than 11 percent to
the bill in order to decrease the amount back to the fiscal year 2008
level, saving nearly $2 billion for the taxpayers.
We are over $18 trillion in our national debt. This is merely a drop
in the bucket, and we owe it to our constituents to cut even more to
restore fiscal sanity in Washington. Defense accounts are exempt from
this cut because Congress is expected to take up the National Defense
Authorization Act in the near future to address those programs.
Mr. Chairman, when I first ran for Congress, I was repeatedly asked:
``If you are elected, what programs would you cut?''
The answer I gave was: ``First, I would go back to 2008 spending
levels, and then we will start cutting.''
My amendment does just this. It allows us to return to the point when
we can finally get serious about paying down our national debt and
saving future generations from economic disaster. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because it
is sort of an untargeted proposal, and our budget in many places on
this bill is very tight. We know the net effect will be to reduce jobs
and hurt the middle class in a sector where America needs help, and
that is energy independence and the modernization of our
infrastructure.
The result of the amendment will be less investment in water resource
infrastructure all over this country at a time when global trade is
increasing. Energy research and development programs, which lead us to
future energy, not past energy resources, which create good jobs and
have substantial returns on investment, will be harmed.
At a time when unemployed Americans lose jobless benefits and when
many young families struggle just to survive, we should be creating
jobs and securing the American Dream through investing in our energy
future, including innovation and investments in the ground in every
``all of the above'' energy sector we have, not tearing it down. Just
since 2003, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion in importing
foreign petroleum. Think about that one.
This is a vast shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands of jobs
are connected to energy production from our country. This amendment
only exacerbates this shift of wealth from the American middle class to
offshore. It is not something I support, and I doubt the gentleman
really wants to support that.
This bill funds critical water resource projects; it supports science
activities necessary to breakthroughs to lead us to a new energy
future; and it contributes, importantly, to our national defense
through vital weapons, naval reactor research, and the nonproliferation
funding we had been discussing earlier this evening.

{time} 2030

We must make certain decisions to lead our country forward. There are
a lot more people who live in this country than lived here in 2008 or
2003. Also, one of the reasons that we have a little bit of uptick in
some of the accounts is, there are actually more American people now,
so we have got to do some things in terms of the ports. Our ports silt
up. We have got to get that out of there in order that we can get
larger ships into our ports carrying more goods.
We can't live in the past. I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing this amendment. Let's take America to the future and not
backwards.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in opposition to this
amendment. This bill that we are currently considering meets the budget
resolution that was just adopted. We have been cutting discretionary
spending for the last 4 years, $173 billion, as I understand it, over
the last 4 years, not in decreases

[[Page H2722]]

in the increases, but actual decreases in spending. This goes way too
far and makes sweeping changes with broad cuts to the reductions. This
is an approach I can't support.
I am particularly concerned about the impact this amendment would
have on our critical infrastructure, as mentioned by the gentlewoman
from Ohio, and the basic research needs that are prioritized in this
bill. While the gentleman has attempted to exclude national security
activities, I have got to tell you, in all honesty, national security
is not the only thing the Federal Government does. We do do other
things. We maintain our waterways and our ports and other activities.
This amendment would still have the detrimental impact on the security
of nuclear materials at the Idaho National Laboratory. These accounts
are very complex, and reductions to each account must be carefully
weighed, and that is what this subcommittee has been doing and holding
hearings on for the last 4 months.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just wanted to say to
the author of the amendment that I said something to the chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means today. I think he took it rather
lightly, but I said, Here we are discussing our appropriation bills on
the floor, and I said, We are trying to balance the budget. I said, But
you know what? Your committee is sitting back; there are no revenues on
the table, and mandatory spending isn't on the table, and you are
trying to take it out of the hides of discretionary spending, which is
such a small part of the entire Federal budget. You know what he did?
He twirled around and kind of laughed me off and walked toward the back
of the Chamber. I didn't think that was a very responsible answer.
So I respect the gentleman being down here tonight, offering his
amendment. I would encourage you to talk to the head of the Committee
on Ways and Means because to try to get us to shrink even more than we
have done in many of our accounts--and, by the way, eleven other
appropriation bills coming after us that have been asked to do the
same--really isn't fair to the American people.
We need all hands on deck, all hands on deck. So I thank the
gentleman for attempting to be responsible, but I really think you
ought to look to some of the other committees that are sitting back
while the burden is on our committee to make these decisions alone.
That isn't right.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUDSON. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chair?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chair, I acknowledge the fine point the gentlewoman
made that we can't cut discretionary spending to get ourselves out of
debt. She makes two valid points: we need more revenue and we need to
address the mandatory spending side. I agree wholeheartedly. We need
tax reform to get us more revenue, to get the economy generated, to get
people back to work, and we also need to look at saving Social Security
and Medicare, shoring them up for future generations and controlling
the cost curve. She makes a valid point.
I also want to acknowledge that Chairman Simpson and the Committee on
Appropriations have actually made real cuts over the last few years. He
also makes a valid point that we have actually cut discretionary
spending in real dollars. I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, we can do
more. I just believe that if you look at the path we are on, we are
heading, if we don't spend another dime, toward a horrific debt crisis
in this country. We just can't afford to sit back and not deal with
that.
I believe we do need to work on the mandatory side for sure because
that is the real driver of our debt. But in the meantime, let's go back
to pre-stimulus time, let's go back to 2008 spending levels because I
don't remember the Federal Government starving for money. I don't
remember the Federal Government just barely being able to function
because it didn't have enough revenue back in 2008. I think it is
prudent for us to do that. It is about jobs, it is about the economy,
it is about our future generation, our children and grandchildren who
are going to have to actually pay the bills that we are running up
right now. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to please support
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.

amendment no. 7 offered by mr. engel

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy, the Department of the
Interior, or any other Federal agency to lease or purchase
new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet, or for an
agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with
Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet Performance, dated May
24, 2011.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that required all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternative fuel vehicles,
such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31 of
this year.
My amendment echoes the President's memorandum by prohibiting funds
in this act from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty
vehicles unless that purchase is made in accord with the President's
memorandum.
I have submitted identical amendments to 15 different appropriations
bills over the past few years, and every time they have been accepted
by both the majority and the minority. I hope my amendment will receive
similar support today.
Global oil prices are down. We no longer pay $147 per barrel, but
despite increased production here in the United States, the global
price of oil is still largely determined by OPEC. Spikes in oil prices
have profound repercussions for our economy. The primary reason is that
our cars and trucks run only on petroleum. We can change that with
alternative technologies that exist today. The Federal Government
operates the largest fleet of light-duty vehicles in America, over
635,000 vehicles. More than 50,000 of those vehicles are within the
jurisdiction of this bill and being used by the Department of Energy,
the Department of the Interior, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
When I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they diversified
their fuel by greatly expanding the use of ethanol. People there can
drive to a gas station and choose whether to fill their vehicle with
gasoline or with ethanol. They make their choice based on cost or
whatever criteria they deem important. I want the same choice for
American consumers. That is why I am also proposing a bill this
Congress, as I have done many times in the past, which will provide for
cars built in America to be able to run on a fuel instead of or in
addition to gasoline. They do it in Brazil. We can do it here, and it
would cost less than $100 per car to do so.
In conclusion, expanding the role these alternative technologies play
in our transportation economy will help break the leverage that foreign
government-controlled oil companies hold over Americans. It will
increase our Nation's domestic security and protect consumers. I am
delighted that both my Republican and Democratic colleagues have
unanimously supported this bill for the past several years. I ask that
my colleagues support the Engel amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2723]]

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) The amount otherwise made available by this
Act for ``Department of Energy--Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Loan Program'' is hereby reduced to $0.
(b) None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to provide a loan under section 136 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from South Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise because too often here at the
Federal level we find ourselves rewarding or occasionally funding
corporations that would do what they do irregardless of what we did at
the Federal level. It has been a point of contention with Democratic
colleagues. Too often we continue to pay for programs that have
outlived their original purpose. I think that too often we find
ourselves looking the other way at programs that don't work and/or have
wasted tens upon tens of millions of dollars.
It is for those different reasons that I rise to offer this
amendment, which would indeed defund the Department of Energy's failed
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Quite simply, it
would just do two things: one, it would eliminate the $6 million in
funding that would go to this program, and, two, it would prevent any
further lending from this program's unused lending capacity.
The reason I think doing those two things are awfully important is,
one, this is, indeed, a case of paying corporations to do what they
would already do. Again, this has been a point in the budget debate
that we had earlier today from both Republican and Democratic
colleagues alike, saying we shouldn't be paying corporations to do
things they would already do. Two, this is, indeed, a stimulus era
program. However well intended in 2009, it has outlived its purpose,
and we are not in the economic situation that we found ourselves in
2009. In fact, this program's authority expired back in 2012, and I
think it is a recognition by this Congress of the fact that maybe some
of the program hasn't been working so well as to why that has indeed
occurred.
Finally, this program has seen real losses; 40 percent of its loans
have gone bad. According to a GAO report, they actually wrote up some
of those losses. What I might do is just share for one moment with my
colleagues, as part of a government reform look at this program, there
was a letter to then Secretary Chu February 28, 2012, from one of the
applicants. In it he quotes the chairman of a Fortune 10 company--not
100, but Fortune 10 company, and this is in the reference to the
letter--told your former deputy, Jonathan Silver, that this program
lacked integrity. That is, it did not have a consistent process and
rules against which private enterprises could rationally evaluate their
chances and intelligently allocate time and resources against that
process.
There can be no greater failing of government than to not have
integrity when dealing with its taxpaying citizens. For a variety of
reasons, I offer this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I want
to share a story. I was out at one of our energy labs in California and
walked into a research lab, a Cummins engine was up on the boards. I
said, What is going on in here? The answer was, We are trying to
understand the science of combustion. I said, You mean it is 2014, and
we don't understand that yet? They said, No, Congresswoman, we really
don't know what happens inside an internal combustion chamber. They
were studying what happens when fuel ignites inside that chamber so
they could make it more energy efficient. I was surprised to learn that
every single automotive company in this country depends on the results
of that research, and Cummins is in the lead.
I want to say to the gentleman, I come from automotive America. When
the industry fell to its knees in 2008 because we have never had a
trade policy that opens closed markets like Japan and Korea and China,
I thought to myself, I never thought I would live to see this day.
After the wise decision of a majority of this Congress and the Obama
administration, we lifted the automotive industry of this country out
of the dregs.
I have watched it recover with vehicles like the Cruze and with the
Wrangler, which is leading the list. When I look at what Ford is doing
in terms of its EcoBoost engine, I see an industry being reborn in our
Nation. The economic growth that comes with it, the incredible muscle
that it provides inside the spine of this economy--not tangential
growth, but real wealth, real wealth being created, again, across this
country in this very important industry--I wouldn't do anything at this
point in American history with the closed markets we are facing abroad
not to support advanced technology in this country.
What we are competing against in other places are countries
disguising themselves as companies, and they are able to subsidize
their industry, close their markets, and prevent even our parts going
into their original equipment. We can succeed most importantly by
advancing automotive technology, advanced vehicle technology.

{time} 2045

This particular program allows the component suppliers, as well as
the original equipment, to benefit. I can tell you, though, the
companies do research themselves; they don't do the kind of basic
research that is necessary to provide the incredible breakthroughs that
can come through the Department of Energy.
If I said to you 25 years ago, ``Would you believe that 10 percent of
gasoline blends are ethanol and renewable fuels,'' you would probably
say, ``Congresswoman, you have been staying up too late too many nights
of the week.''
In fact, it has happened. Now, we are going to move to a 15 percent
renewable blend. Who would have thought that would be possible? Who
would have thought we could get 40-mile-a-gallon vehicles on the road?
We are moving toward that now, flexible fuel. That is not by accident.
This program supports just what it says, advanced technology vehicles
manufacturing.
Given concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues regarding
appropriate oversight of these programs, I think the net effect of your
amendment is going to be to eliminate oversight of this program, which
I don't think we want to do. I think we want to make it work for
America's sake.
I oppose your amendment, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I also have to oppose this amendment. While I appreciate
the gentleman's position on the ATVM program, the elimination would
hurt Federal oversight of the program of more than $8 billion in loans
already given. The committee recommendations include the $6 million as
a reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to the existing
loan portfolio and no more.
I don't think the gentleman wants to actually eliminate the oversight
of the loans that are out there that are going to be running for the
next 30 years.
I must oppose the gentleman's amendment in order to ensure that there
is proper oversight of taxpayer funding.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman very much, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SANFORD. I thank both of my colleagues for their counterpoints,
and I understand absolutely this notion of competitiveness. I agree
with Thomas Friedman, the world is flat; and we are in a global
competition for jobs, capital, and way of life.
Look at, again, the fundamentals of this program. I have here a GAO--
Government Accountability Office--report

[[Page H2724]]

that says the cost of participating in this program outweighs the
benefits to companies. That is a GAO report, not a private sector
report, not a rightwing report.
I think it is also interesting, in pulling this letter that was,
again, written by a supplicant to the agency itself, said that the due
diligence process in their attempt--and they ultimately quit--but their
attempt to get a loan was more than 1,175 days. His point in this
letter was that that was more than tenuous and, frankly, had much to do
with their ultimately ceasing and desisting.
I would also make this point: they have only made five loans. If we
were depending on these five loans for innovation in new technology in
the way that internal combustion engines work or the way that we burn
fossil fuel, we are in real trouble, but five loans is what we are
talking about.
I would also make this point: I think, at some point, given the
scarcity of resources that we do deal with in Washington, D.C., we have
to at some level make a divide between big companies. Ford's market cap
is $63 billion. Alcoa's is $16 billion.
Would not these funds be better used going to small innovators, as
opposed to these large, multinational corporations that I think, in
many cases, are the beneficiary of corporate largesse, but corporate
largesse that I don't think serves the taxpayer well or, according to
these industry analysts, the industry as well?
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cleaver

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. During fiscal year 2016, the limitation relating
to total project costs in section 902 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall not apply with
respect to any project that receives funds made available by
title I of this Act.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from Missouri and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would waive the limit on
total costs for Army Corps projects which are set forth in section 902
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
The law states that a project cannot be funded by more than 20
percent of the project's total authorized cost. This amendment would
waive that limitation for any project that receives funds made
available by title I of this act.
Thirty or so years have passed since Congress originally authorized
many of the current Federal flood control projects. Unfortunately, the
large backlog of projects, incremental funding by Congress, and
unforeseen circumstances has resulted in costly delays for projects
across this country, pushing many over the now outdated authorized
limits. Many of these projects are so close to the finish line, and
this language could help them cross it.
Mr. Chairman, this language is vital to the continuation of valued
flood control projects in my congressional district. The Dodson
Industrial District project in Kansas City, Missouri, has completed its
first three phases. However, without an increase in its authorized
total cost, the project cannot move forward on the final phase.
Currently, the area has a floodwall unconnected to the rest of the
project and investments of $250 million at risk. If the project could
be fully funded at the increased total amount, it could be completed in
fiscal year 2017.
Projects that have reached their 902 limit can apply for a project
cost modification. However, the application and review process
routinely takes several years to get approval from the Army Corps
headquarters. These valued projects, in which the Federal Government
has already invested millions of dollars, are languishing for 2, 3, or
more years during that review process.
Another control project in Kansas City, called Turkey Creek Basin,
has over $200 million in investment protected by this project,
including a major interstate highway. It was authorized in 1999 and is
ready for the final phase, but did not receive Federal funding last
year or in this year's budget request because of a pending cost
modification application, which began in 2013.
Mr. Chairman, just in my district, there are three flood control
projects that have pending cost modification applications that were
started in 2013. I can only surmise that this trend has continued in
just about every other congressional district in the country.
Mr. Chairman, these are not exotic projects. These are projects which
will help generate the businesses in those areas to a point where they
can begin to grow.
I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
attention to this matter. With some assurances that the committee will
try to address this issue as the bill moves into conference process, I
would consider withdrawing the amendment at any time.
I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. SIMPSON. 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 gives affirmative direction in effect.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment explicitly supersedes existing
law by waiving section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 with respect to certain projects covered by the bill.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

amendment offered by mr. burgess

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to implement or enforce section 430.32(x) of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations; or
(2) to implement or enforce the standards established by
the tables contained in section 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) with
respect to BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandescent
reflector lamps, and ER incandescent reflector lamps.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
actually maintains current law.
Since its passage in 2007, I have heard from tens of thousands of
constituents about how the language in the 2007 Energy Independence and
Security Act will take away consumer choice when deciding what
lightbulb to use in your home. In fact, they are right.
While the government has passed energy efficiency standards in other
realms over the years, they have never jumped so far and lowered
standards so drastically. It is to a point where technology is still
years away from making lightbulbs that are compliant with the

[[Page H2725]]

law at a price point that the average American can afford.
Opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language does not
ban the incandescent bulb. That is true. It bans the sales of the 100-
watt, the 60-watt, and the 45-watt bulbs. The replacement bulbs are far
from economically efficient, even if they are energy efficient. A
family living paycheck to paycheck can't afford to replace every bulb
in their house at even $5 a bulb.
The economics of the lightbulb mandate are only part of the story.
With the extreme expansion of Federal powers undertaken by President
Obama and the Democrats in Congress during the first 2 years of the
Obama administration, Americans have woken up to just how far the
Constitution's Commerce Clause has been manipulated from its original
intent. The lightbulb mandate is a perfect example of this.
The Commerce Clause was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a
limitation on Federal authority, not a catchall nod to allow for any
topic to be regulated by Washington; indeed, it is clear that the
Founding Fathers never intended this clause to be used to allow the
Federal Government to regulate and pass mandates on consumer products
that do not pose a risk to human health or safety.
This Congress must be on the side of consumers and consumer choice.
If new, energy-efficient lightbulbs save money and are better for the
environment, we should trust the American people to make that choice on
their own and move to these bulbs. We should not be forcing these
lightbulbs on the American public.
The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business taking away
the freedom of Americans to choose what bulb to put in their homes. I
will add that, recently, the lightbulb manufacturers in this country
have claimed that, because of the stopgap provision in the 2007 law, if
we continue to prevent the Department of Energy from promulgating rules
pursuant to these provisions, the manufacturers will be forced to stop
manufacturing compliant incandescent bulbs.
This is actually an argument to repeal the 2007 language in its
entirety, not to allow it to be implemented. We should not allow a
stopgap trigger in the law to extort us into passing bad policy and
moving forward.
This exact amendment has been accepted for the past 3 years by a
voice vote and has been included in the annual appropriations
legislation signed into law by the President each year since its first
inclusion. It allows consumers to continue to have a choice and to have
a say about what they will put in their homes. It is common sense.
Mr. Chairman, I should add that I have had conversations with my good
friend, Mr. Jordan from Ohio, on this amendment. I understand that
there have been discussions about changes to the language in order to
balance both the philosophical belief that this is the wrong policy for
our country and the pragmatic belief that we should do no harm to the
livelihoods of our constituents.
I continue to offer, as I did last July, to sit down with Mr. Jordan
or anyone else to see if compromise language can be achieved prior to
the end of the fiscal year, but in the meantime, I offer this amendment
to the body.
Mr. BARTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURGESS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. I
think it is absolutely the right thing to do. It is pure common sense.
As you know, these newer bulbs, while they may be more energy
efficient, they are much more expensive. I have yet to see one that
costs less than $3 or $4. The incandescent bulbs--when you can find
them--you can get four for $2.50 or something like that.
This is a commonsense approach to let the consumer choose. Certainly,
for lower-income Americans that don't have the ability to buy the more
expensive bulbs, it makes a lot of economic sense.
I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my
time.

{time} 2100

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I strongly oppose this damaging rider by my good friend,
Congressman Burgess of Texas, because it would block the Department of
Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency
standards for lightbulbs. This rider was a bad idea when it was first
offered 4 years ago, and it is even more unsupportable now.
Every claim made by proponents of this rider has been proven wrong.
Dr. Burgess told us that the energy efficiency standards would ban
incandescent lightbulbs, but that simply is false. You can go to the
store today and see shelves of modern, energy-efficient incandescent
lightbulbs that meet the standard. They are the same as the old bulbs,
except that they last longer, use less electricity, and save consumers
money.
We have heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict
consumer choice. But if you have shopped for lightbulbs lately, which I
have, you know that isn't true either. Modern incandescent bulbs,
compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and LEDs of every shape, size, and
color are now available. Consumers never had more choice.
The efficiency standards spurred innovation that dramatically
expanded options for consumers. Critics of the efficiency standards
claimed that they would cost consumers money. In fact, the opposite is
true. When the standards are in full effect, the average American
family will save about $100 every year. That is $13 billion in savings
nationwide every year. But this rider threatens those savings, and that
is why consumer groups have consistently opposed this rider.
Here is the reality. The 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards
for lightbulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to
enjoy overwhelming industry support. U.S. manufacturers are already
meeting the efficiency standards.
The effect of the rider is to allow foreign manufacturers to sell
old, inefficient lightbulbs in the United States that violate the
efficiency standards. This is unfair to domestic producers who have
invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make efficient bulbs
that meet the standards.
Why on Earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign
manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalize U.S. manufacturers who
are following our laws?
But it even gets worse. The rider now poses an additional threat to
U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 energy bill required the
Department of Energy to establish updated lightbulb efficiency
standards by January 1, 2017. It also provided that if final updated
standards are not issued by then, a more stringent standard of 45
lumens per watt automatically takes effect. Incandescent lightbulbs
currently cannot meet this backstop standard.
This rider blocks the Department of Energy from issuing the required
efficiency standards and ensures that the backstop will kick in.
Ironically, it is this rider that could effectively ban the
incandescent lightbulb.
The Burgess rider directly threatens existing lightbulb manufacturing
jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois, to name but three. It would
stifle innovation and punish companies that have invested in domestic
manufacturing. This rider aims to reverse years of technological
progress, only to kill jobs, increase electricity bills for our
constituents, and worsen pollution.
It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology. It is time to
listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency
advocates who all agree this rider is harmful. I urge all Members to
vote ``no'' on the Burgess lightbulb rider.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I would just observe, at the end of
calendar year 2007, the commentator George Will observed the United
States Congress had two jobs: deliver the mail and defend the border.
It had done neither. But what it had done was ban the incandescent
bulb, perhaps the greatest invention ever invented by an American
inventor.
This is a commonsense amendment. It deserves passage.

[[Page H2726]]

I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dent

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy to finalize, implement,
or enforce the proposed rule entitled ``Standards Ceiling
Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and identified by
regulation identification number 1904-AC87.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to stop
overbearing Department of Energy regulations from driving up the cost
of ceiling fans and increasing energy consumption as a result. I offer
this amendment, along with my colleagues Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee
and Mr. Rokita of Indiana, both of whom have been very engaged on this
issue.
The Department of Energy is currently considering a proposed rule,
entitled, ``Standard Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits,'' which
would impose increased efficiency requirements for ceiling fans sold in
the United States. This regulation, if implemented, would have the
effect of increasing the cost of ceiling fans, in some cases by nearly
double, thereby reducing the purchase and use of ceiling fans by
American consumers. The end result, ironically, would be heavier
reliance on central air-conditioning and, thus, increased energy
consumption.
Ceiling fans, by their nature, are already an extremely energy-
efficient method of cooling a home or a business, using between 20 and
100 watts during operation, compared with a central A/C unit which
typically uses between 3,500 and 5,000 watts. That is an order of
magnitude less energy, which can save a household up to 14 percent on
cooling costs.
The Department of Energy's proposed standard is regulatory solution
in search of a problem.
Now, the ceiling fan industry has already demonstrated a strong
commitment to energy efficiency, as evidenced by the dramatic increase
in ENERGY STAR certified ceiling fans on the market over the past
decade. The industry continues to develop energy-saving innovations,
such as a redesigned motor, which uses up to 70 percent less
electricity than the traditional ceiling fan motor. This has all taken
place absent the heavy hand of government regulation.
At a time when homeowners across the United States are trying to
reduce energy usage and cost, we should not increase the price of
ceiling fans by setting unrealistic and unnecessary efficiency
requirements on an already efficient product. Ceiling fans can help
reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and ease the strain on our
national power grid during the time of year when it is most heavily
taxed.
Madam Chairman, I would simply state that ceiling fans are an
inexpensive, easy way to reduce cooling costs, and the Federal
Government should avoid taking actions that will stifle innovation and,
ultimately, drive consumers to less efficient methods of cooling their
home and business.
I would urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment
to stop this burdensome government regulation, and encourage reduced
energy consumption through increased efficiency.
Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs.
Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Dent and Mr.
Rokita for their work on this issue.
The Department of Energy is so determined to redesign the ceiling fan
that they have released a 101-page rulemaking framework document which
evaluates the potential energy savings of their new regulations.
Well, what we have found is that, just like stretching their
tentacles into lightbulbs and so many other areas of our home, what
they are doing is pricing people out of the ceiling fan market. These
new regulations would significantly impair the ability of ceiling fan
manufacturers like Hunter Fans in Memphis, Tennessee, to produce
reasonably priced, highly decorative fans.
The regulations will not only place a higher price tag on the less-
pleasing designs, but could increase homeowners' reliance on cooling
systems that are less energy efficient.
What we are seeing is, with ceiling fans, that many of our
constituents save as much as 14 percent on their energy use to cool
their home, and they can save homeowners as much as 40 percent of their
air-conditioning bills by creating a breeze that makes the room feel a
little bit cooler. New regulations will curb increased consumer trends
in the marketplace, which currently include placing ceiling fans in
laundry rooms, closets, and master bathrooms.
I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Rokita).
Mr. ROKITA. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her
continued work on this matter.
Frankly, as I look around the room tonight, I think it is kind of
ridiculous that we are sitting here talking, standing here talking
about ceiling fans. This is what it has come to.
The bureaucracy in this town is now telling the American people that
they know what belongs on their ceiling more than those people do. It
is government run amuck. It is an example of the complete disregard
bureaucrats have for the practical implications of the regulations they
issue.
The Department of Energy, as is stated, contends that a certain
amount of energy would be saved by requiring greater efficiency from
ceiling fans, completely disregarding the fact that if you price people
out of this market, as the gentlewoman from Tennessee said, they are
going to have to buy cooling systems that are even more expensive, buy
fans that are even more expensive.
Let's get out of this business. We have more important things to do
than worrying about bureaucrats and what they decide people need on
their ceilings. Let's remember, this amendment was adopted in 2014 on
the floor, and it was in the base text of the 2015 bill.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, given it
is a solution in search of a problem.
Since their implementation, standards for ceiling fans and ceiling
fan light kits have saved American consumers--are you ready?--$4.5
billion--billion--in energy costs, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by
22 metric tons.
Nearly a decade ago--why do we have this system? Because three
States--California, Maryland, and New York--created their own unique
standards for ceiling fan test procedures and performance, and these
varying requirements created difficulties for manufacturers marketing
products across all 50 States.
In response, the fan manufacturing industry asked the Federal
Government for a national standard that would reduce unnecessary
complexity. Since that time, the DOE, Department of Energy, has not
even proposed a new rule on ceiling fans, so it is premature to react
to what might be in a new rule. Even if a new rule is proposed,
implementation is years away.
The Department's analysis so far has shown that options exist for
increasing

[[Page H2727]]

ceiling fan efficiency that are cost-effective for manufacturers and
the consumers. Any upgrades will enable consumers to save money by
saving energy, also moving our country closer to its low-carbon future.
Given the proposed rule has yet to be released, industry cannot
anticipate how much their manufacturing costs might increase, whether
their business model would be turned upside down, or whether the rule
would result in energy growth. Industry has not substantiated any of
their claims.
The Department of Energy has conducted extensive consultation with
industry stakeholders, including the companies themselves, and any
potential indirect effects on air-conditioning units.
The amendment ensures that consumers will be stuck with less
efficient fans and higher energy costs. I can't see why we would want
to do that.
Let's help this industry. As I have stated, I object to the amendment
as proposed and urge a ``no'' vote by my colleagues.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2115

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of section 2101 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C.
2238b) or section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the DeFazio-
Poe-Napolitano amendment.
I sincerely thank Ranking Member DeFazio and, of course, the ranking
member of the committee for offering this critical amendment which
implements the harbor maintenance allocation formulas that were
carefully negotiated and included in the WRRDA 2014 and passed the
House by a vote of 412-4. I repeat, 412-4.
WRRDA '14 said that any funds appropriated for the harbor maintenance
account above $898 million--of course this was the baseline amount
appropriated in fiscal year '12--should be--it doesn't say ``would
be,'' ``could be''--it should be allocated based on the following
parameters:
Ten percent at least goes to the Great Lakes. At least 10 percent
goes to expanded uses at donor ports, which would be New York/New
Jersey, Miami, Seattle, Tacoma, Los Angeles, and Long Beach. Expanded
uses are berth dredging, removal of contaminated sediment,
environmental remediation, and/or subsidies to shippers to continue to
use their ports. At least 5 percent goes to underserved harbors. Ten
percent goes for emerging harbors.
The 2016 Corps budget does not--I repeat, does not--include the WRRDA
2014 harbor maintenance trust allocations. It does not include them.
This amendment is needed to require the Corps to implement these
funds allocations, as directed by Congress.
Madam Chairman, this amendment is especially important to provide
fairness to my State of California and to other ports.
All ports in California only receive 15 percent--this is all ports--
back of what their shippers paid into that harbor maintenance trust
fund.
Last year, the users of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone
paid $263 million in harbor maintenance taxes and received zero--I
repeat, zero--back in harbor maintenance funds. This is terribly
unfair, and it is, as far as we are concerned, illegal.
This amendment will ensure that it brings back a little bit of that
fairness to the donor harbors by providing them with a small portion of
what they paid into the system.
I do want to add that this amendment is supported by the American
Association of Port Authorities and the ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach.
I ask for support of the DeFazio amendment. I request a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stivers

Mr. STIVERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Cape Wind Energy Project on the Outer
Continental Shelf off Massachusetts, Nantucket Sound.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STIVERS. Madam Chair, the amendment I am offering tonight is
simple. It prohibits funding for the Cape Wind project off Nantucket
Sound. This amendment was offered last year and was accepted
unanimously, and I hope it will be again.
The problem with this project isn't that it is renewable energy. We
all support renewable energy. This is a renewable energy that is not
supporting American jobs. In fact, they have outsourced their turbines
to Denmark and their turbine platforms to Germany.
The other issue is, this project has been quite controversial, and I
think that we don't want another Solyndra.
This amendment was adopted last year by a voice vote. I would urge a
``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Newhouse). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Foxx) having assumed the chair, Mr. Newhouse, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2028)
making appropriations for energy and water development and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________