competitiveness. at the same time the bill adds spending to increase our nuclear weapon stockpiles. how can we expect to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists if we cut the nuclear nonproliferation activities by $600 million? under this bill. while the bill increases funding for our wents programs, and continues funding for fossil fuel subsidies, it guts many of our renewable energy programs. like r.p.e., the department of energy office of science, and investing in the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. this bill threatens to increase our reliance on foreign oil, reduce job growth, increase pollution and damage american distribute health of american families. if we don't act to reverse this legislation he deep cuts to science programs and energy research, the united states will have many, many missiles armed with nuclear warheads, but we'll fall behind our global

competitors who are investing heavily in renewable and next generation energy technologies. i strongly urge that we defeat the previous question and i urge a no vote on the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: i cannot recall a place in the constitution where it says the house passes a bill, the senate can't pass it, so the house comes back and tries to find a better bill that maybe the senate will now take up. i wish that had happened on that health care stuff back in 2009 and 2010, we would have a lot better world today. the fact of the matter is the house has passed the student loan bill. the senate has the obligation to act. the deadline of july 1 was in fact provided to us by a funding

clip the democrats enacted in 2007 when they started this process. the deadline was self-imposed by democratic majority of the house of representatives, democratic majority in the senate. democrats in the other body are fully aware of that deadline. we are fully aware of that deadline. they were the ones that let it lapse. the house had done its work. they were fully capable of passing something. sending it back to us so it could either be passed or adjusted prior to the july 4 recess. -- egards to the rule legislation we are currently considering, we do continue the republican commitment to maintaining an open and transparent nature to the appropriations process. this rule balances our commitment to energy independence, national security, with good stewardship of taxpayer money. i want to again commend chairman rogers, ranking member lowey, chairman frelinghuysen, and ranking minority member kaptur for working together to craft a bill that balances our spending priorities with our concerns

over the deficit and our climbing national debt. at this point i want to yield back the balance of my time, move the previous question, ask for an aye on the previous question and aye on the underlying resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having isen, andays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute vote on adoption of the house resolution 288, if ordered, and approval of the journal. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 220. the nays are 182. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i would like to request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226. the nays are 178. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question of agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242, the nays are 138. the journal stands approved.

one answering present, i'm sorry. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek rec fligs? -- recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of house concurrent resolution 43 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 43, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitor's center for a ceremony honoring the life and legacy of nelson mandela on the occasion of the 95th

anniversary of his birth. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider s laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on onsideration of h.r. 2609. mr. frelinghuysen: and that i might include material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 288 and rule 18, the declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of

h.r. 2609. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2609 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ening september 30, 2014, -- ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from nnl, mr. frelinghuysen, and the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman . i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: it's my honor to bring the fiscal year 2014 energy and water

development bill before the membership of the house. however, before i go through its highlights, i'd like to thank my ranking member, ms. kaptur, for her partnership on this bill and hard work and friendship. it's been a real honor to work with you and i look forward to working with you to get through the entire process. mr. chairman, i'd also like to thank all the members of our committee on both sides of the aisle for putting this bill so quickly together and so responsibly. i'd also like to recognize the hard work of chairman rogers and ranking member lowey, to bring this bill and several others before it to the floor nder an open rule. the bill for fiscal year 2014 totals $30.4 billion, $2.9 below last year's levels. and more than $4 billion below the president's request. the budget allocation we receive this year made for some very difficult decisions. but in our bipartisan tradition, we worked hard to

incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. he committee will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, we placed the greatest priority on national defense, our nuclear deterrent. also the critical work of the army corps of engineers and other activities on which the federal government must take the lead. the reductions we had to make to the applied energy and research and development programs will shift more of their work to the private sector. the bill provides $7.4 million in increase -- an increase of $98 million above the fiscal year 2013 amount to modernize the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and support its infrastructure, excluding rescissions. i would also like to note that the recommendation contains no funding to implement the president's recently announced plans in berlin to reduce the

nuclear stockpile. no funding for such purposes will be available until congress has judged that these plans will fully support our national defense. the recommendation increases the corps of engineers by $50 million above the president's request and redirects funds to ensure our waterways and harbors keep america open for bills. and economically competitive. these waterways and harbors handled foreign commerce valued at more than $1.7 trillion last year alone. as in previous fiscal years, the bill maintains the constitutional role of congress in the appropriations process by ensuring that all worthy corps of engineers projects have a chance to compete for funding. basic science programs total $4.7 billion, just above last year's postsequestration levels. environmental cleanup programs to address the legacy of the

manhattan project and other contaminated sites are funded at $5.5 billion. approximately $185 million above the postsequester levels for fiscal year 2013. in order to find room for the bill's core priorities, applied energy and research and development had to be cut. the recommendation prioritizes funding in this area for programs which truly support american manufacturing jobs, stable energy prices and diversity of energy supplies. our bill includes $450 million for fossil energy technologies and $650 million for nuclear energy activities. both of these programs are cut below the fiscal year 2013 postsequester level. the bill combines the electricity delivery program and the energy efficiency and renewable energy program and provides $983 million for these activities, excluding rescissions.

the recommendations also orients these programs to focus on electricity infrastructure resilience, to include cybersecurity. and gasoline prices. and finally, on yucca mountain, our recommendation includes $25 million to sustain the program along with similar language as last year's, prohibiting activities that would keep that facility from being usable in the future. it also includes support for the nuclear regulatory commission, to get that yucca license application finally finished. no funding is included for requested activities to move past kwlucka mountain repository program -- yucca mountain repository program, when congress authorizes changeses to the program of record, the committee will consider funding for alternatives. thank you, mr. chairman, this bill recognizes our fiscal realities, it makes the tough decisions to ensure we get our spending under control without

sacrificing our most critical of federal function. i'm expecting a vigorous and open debate during an open process over the coming days so all can have a chance to contribute to this legislation. before i reserve the balance of my time, i want to thank those who helped bring this bill to the floor. on the majority side, our clerk, ralph blair, agey decarlo, ben hammond, perry yates, adam boreli, tania berkham. ms. kaptur, her deputy chief of staff, ryan stire from my staff, nancy fox, my chief of staff, and katie haslet. all of these individuals and others behind the scenes make this process work, one that we can be proud of and i think we have a bill that indeed we can be proud of and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: yes, mr. chairman,

i appreciate chairman frelinghuysen's able and collegial leadership throughout this process and efforts to assemble a bill in an inclusive manner in our subcommittee. i also want to say what a pleasure it was to work with him and i wish all subcommittees could work as effectively. i want to thank chairman rogers and ranking member lowey for their efforts to restore a semblance of regular order to this house in consideration of our appropriation bills and i want to thank all the members of our sioux are subker -- of our subcommittee for their thoughtful deliberation in considering the best interests of our nation as they relate to energy and water development and importantly america's nuclear security. i appreciate the dedication, hard work and sound judgment of our committee's staff on both sides of the aisle, on the majority committee staff side, rob blair, ben hammond, lorraine heckenberg, angie geancarlo and on the minority side, tania berk ham, katie

haslet, ryan fox, nathan facey and steve foe. while chairman frelling hughes answers efforts are to be -- frelinghuysen's efforts are to be commented, the allocation imposed on our subcommittee by the republican leaders on this house and its budget committee move america backwards in the global economy where our nation's future is at stake. the budget committee's directive to us reminds me of a seafaring expression. if you don't know which way your ship is head, you're bound to run aground or die at sea. this bill runs america aground. it says to future generations, we'll risk your lives floating lost at sea. it's simply inadequate to meet the needs of our nation. high unemployment resulting from wall street as abandon and over a decade of war caused high

unemployment that reduced federal revenues. this bill will not embrace the future nor create the necessary jobs to reverse that trend and lift up america's working families. our focus has to be on the future, on creating jobs and opportunity with every single measure that comes before this house. foreign energy dependence is our nation's chief strategic vulnerability. this bill abandons america's quest for energy independence. and has the potential to create millions of new jobs. for every american life lost in pursuit of our nation's national security, now dependent on energy import, i dedicate my work on this bill today and i also dedicate my work on the floor in memory of judge francis, a world war ii veteran who passed this weekend, and js

a -- just a phenomenal citizen of our country. this bill not only guts funding for alternative energy research and development, it officially heralds the republican majority's embrace of sequestration. sequestration is the most vivid symbol of congressional negligence. with that one dreadful bill, the republican majority manages not only to turn its back on energy independence, but also to surrender its congressional responsibility to manage the budget of our country responsibly. the majority has waived the white flag. this year in the lake erie region we are celebrating the heroic of comman door perry, hero of the battle of lake erie in the war of 1812. his motto was don't give up the ship. the majority's motto is just give up. we give up trying to perform our

constitutional responsibilities with respect to fiscal affairs. we give up trying to create the much needed jobs that will restore our fiscal footing. we give up trying to help america break free of its dependence on imported petroleum. we just give up. let the mindless sequester be the status quo. it's no mystery why congress' approval ratings have hit an all-time low. this policy is running our economic ship of state aground when we need full sail ahead. allocation for the energy and water bill is $30.4 billion, which is $4.1 billion below the administration's request, and $2.8 billion below last year's level. there are further allocation cuts beyond even sequestration levels resulting in deep and severe reductions made to important priorities within the

bill. the chairman worked to include resources for many federal priorities, including the corps of engineers, nuclear safety and clean up, and the bill also prioritizes some of the nuclear funding rograms, but these programs came at the expense of others so vital to future energy systems for our nation, including renewable nergy, cut by nearly 60% and advanced energy research which received an 81% reduction. shortchanging critical energy and infrastructure investments will slow economic growth and job creation, hindering america's competitiveness. let us look at the water k we must continue to invest in america. the scope of damage caused by natural disasters like hurricane sandy have laid bare the inadequacies of our water infrastructure, corps of engineers' budget currently has a backlog of -- authorized

projects in excess of $60 billion from coast to coast. continues a steady decline in water resource infrastructure, reducing the construction account by $331 million from 2013. communities across our country will continue to erode as they experience firsthand this decreased investment. the risk illustrated by the failure of flood control projects that the american people endured in the wake of katrina are not gone. communities across our country are in desperate need of investment. but this bill short cuts that. take st. louis, missouri, or sacramento, california, where a levee break could leave residents with as little as 20 minutes to flea before the water gets -- flee before the water gets one foot deep. or areas where the corps must work harder and faster towards more competitive protection. what sense does cleaning up

after natural disasters make when preventive measures could prevent the destruction and loss of life. we should be doing more to build infrastructure and create jobs not less. investments now will yield future benefits that will far outweigh repayment costs. that's what the hoover dam is all about. that's what our mississippi river lock and dam system is all about. that is what electrifying our nation, rural and urban, was all about. great vision for a great nation, not lilliputian surrender. on future energy systems this bill would slash funding for applied energy research and half.pment by more than even as foreign competition doubles down to develop 21st century technology. while undermining our market through illegal dumping and intellectual property theft. renewable energy is a vital link of future energy independence beyond the fossil fuel age. it will achieve cost competitiveness, but the

question is, which countries will develop and own those technologies? the united states has spent $2.3 trillion importing foreign petroleum since 2003, representing thousands and thousands of dollars out of the pockets of every hardworking american family. these are dollars diverted not to much needed american job creation, but overseas, assisting our competitors in developing their economies and their energy futures. we are ceding millions of jobs and trillions in income from this country to undemocratic kingdoms far from home. wake up, america. wake up, congress. in 2012 every bill dollars of u.s. exports supported nearly 5,000 jobs here at home. but can you imagine what $2.3 trillion in our energy trade deficit translates into lost jobs in america over the last 10 years?

it's a hemorrhage. our republic will not compete in this 21st century and beyond if we further reduce investments in this area and cede our energy to other countries. predatory foreign competition in energy poses a real security threat to our contry. i view it as the chief security threat to our country. i appreciate the chairman's commitment to ensure that technology developed with taxpayer dollars benefits our nation first. department of energy, however, must do more to ensure that intellectual property supported by federal dollars furthers the interest of the united states economy. and i'm concerned with the level of funding, i appreciate the chairman's commitment to american manufacturing in this bill, manufacturing remains one of the most important job drivers in our economy. usingere is little use in federal dollars that are ultimately made in america and

manufactured domestically. america must do more to reverse the trend of domestic firms shifting production overseas because to put it simply, domestic manufacturing drives domestic innovation and jobs here in america. tragically the science account critical to the competitiveness of our nation is reduced by 5% from 2012. d with an 81% reduction, 81% reduction in the new arpa program, this would end the most advanced research our nation can launch. for is not a formula success. we are beginning to see the initial payment which advances high potential, high impact energy technology so advanced they are too early for private sector investment. return on investment from our publically funded research and development ranges from 20% to 67%. it's a home run. with this rate of return, congress should be increasing our investment in science.

this bill moves us exactly in the opposite direction. finally, i remain concerned this bill increases spending for nuclear weapons upgrades at the expense of nuclear nonproliferation and cleanup. i support the funding to maintain our nuclear arsenal at acceptable levels and i appreciate the efforts to improve program and project management, including the reporting requirement on life extension programs at the nuclear security agency. however, nonproliferation programs are on the frontlines of our defense. they are the most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb grade material. but this bill cuts these $559 l efforts by million. what sense does that make? further, i am concerned that the funding the bill includes for environmental management activities is insufficient to meet the federal government's legal obligations to clean up

its defense nuclear waste. in sum, this bill should achieve critical investments in our country. it fails to do so. it should promote job creation. it fails to do so. it should ensure national energy security and national security. it failts to do so. -- it fails to do so. it should protect and promote vital infrastructure. it fails to do so. it should advance american competitiveness, and it fails to do so. unfortunately, republicans on the budget committee continue to push the outrageous notion that we can balance our budget through cuts to nondefense discretionary spending which account for only 17% of federal spending. in so doing, they harm america's future in a very major way. again, i commend the chairman's effort, however the allocation for this bill is insufficient and irresponsible. i cannot in good conscience support it. it is my firm hope that the committee will be provide add workable path toward the fiscal

2014 appropriation bills, and i look forward to the day we will return allocations to acceptable levels and to working with the chairman to draft a bill worthy of support. let me before reserving the balance of my time read that quote right up there above the speaker's rostrum, let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered. that is our charge in this bill. and this bill fails. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio reserves her time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: madam chair, i yield five minutes to the ranking member of the appropriations

committee, our very able ranking member of the full committee from new york, representative nita lowey. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: i first want to thank the chair and i appreciate your important work on this bill, and i would like to thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member for your leadership and for your eloquent statement on this bill. it has been a pleasure for me to work with you. i thank you so very much. i rise in strong opposition to this woefully inadequate bill. with an allocation of $30.4 billion, $2.8 billion less than the f.y. 2013 enacted level, when adjusted for sandy reconstruction, and a little more than $4 billion below the request, the consequences of following the majority's budget

are crystal clear. the erosion of america's high-tech and scientific work force, the loss of clean and renewable energy break throughs to countries like -- breakthroughs to countries like china. the abandonment of communities along our nation's coastlines and waterways. rpewith an 81% reduction in and 60% or $700 million reduction to energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy delivery and reliability last year, pared to this bill will leave our scientific and technological work force ill-equipped to tackle the great challenges of our time. such drastic cuts will force the federal government to withdraw critical support for clean energy and renewable investments

on the cusp of their maturity. these funding levels will inflict great pain on the american people who will be left jobless with the exploitation of america's clean energy and innovation economy to china and other foreign competitors. the consequence of allowing our competitors to gain ground is already evidence. china's newest supercomputer, which was built almost entirely from chinese parts, was deemed the fastest in the world. clocking in about twice as fast as the best american machine. if supercomputing is a measure of our scientific innovation, we are losing badly. the bill also dramatically underinvests by $300 million below last year's in our

nation's water resource infrastructure, leaving homes, businesses, communities vulnerable to damage from natural disasters like superstorm sandy. this decrease would compound ior cuts in 2011, 2012, 2013 taling $769 million of which $688 million was cut from the army corps construction account for projects we all know need to be done. over 300 projects were suspended between theven and 2012 -- 2011 and 2012. are we going to abandon these projects forever? as a member whose district was affected by hurricane sandy, i can attest that prevention is cheaper and smarter than paying

for reconstruction later. additionally, decreasing investments in water infrastructure inhibits construction, job creation and local businesses and individuals will not reap the indirect economic benefits that encourage critical investments in their communities. it is my firm hope that the majority will recognize had a this bill does not provide a workable path forward and return to the strength levels agreed to under the budget control act. to do otherwise is to purposefully undermine efforts to support american job creation and economic growth. i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady from new york yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: madam chair, i

queeled two minutes to the representative from california, representative bera. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bera: i applaud the committee for addressing a critical issue, not just my ometown, but to the entire nation. most know sacramento as the capital of the golden state. what many don't know is the sacramento region would sit at the confluence of the sacramento and american rivers where they converge near the bay delta, has the second highest flood risk in the united states. only new orleans is at greater risk of flooding, and we know what happened during hurricane katrina. e folsom joint dam project will protect our region from disaster. we must continue to fund these improvements, to take pressure off our overburdened levees and keep people who live and work in my region safe. a flood in sacramento would be devastating to the 1.4 million residents in our metropolitan

area. the flood risk could result in closures of evacuation routes, like interstate 5 and interstate 80, a shutdown of our international airport and destruction of homes and hospitals not to mention the irreversible tragic loss of life. additionally, flooding could results in billions of dollars of damage and could take weeks or months to pump the water out of the region. another area of crucial importance that i hope this body will soon address is the sacramento-american river levee system. many of the levees in my area date from the 1870's when farmers began building 1,100 les of protection around the sacramento-san joaquin delta to help floodwaters and create farmland. they are in desperate need of repair and in need of preventing a catastrophic

disaster. we all know the devastation created by superstorm sandy. however, unlike a slow-moving hurricane, a breach of the levees could occur with little or no warning. in fact, robert b, professor at the university of california-berkley, quotes, in terms of damages, death and long-term costs, a rupture in the delta levee would be far more destructive what happened n hurricane katrina. this is a ticking time bomb. in 2006, governor arnold schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency. he signed in executive order directing agencies to identify and repair the levees. the citizens levied themselves a tax and they already paid for along with the state of california 35% of the work. we now need this body to allocate the rest to keep our region safe.

as the chairwoman -- the ranking member said, it is better to prevent a catastrophe than to wait for that tragic loss of life. addressing vital projects like sacramento-american river levees is crucial. it's what we should be doing. it puts people to work. it is time for us to come together as a body and get america working again and fund vital projects like the sacramento-american river levees. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. kaptur: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, representative janice hahn. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. hahn: thank you. you know, i'm disappointing that once again we're hortchanging american ports, businesses and consumers.

when our ports aren't well maintained, when we fail to support their infrastructure and their dredging, we theyen more than $3 trillion of economic output in -- we threaten more than $3 trillion of economic output. american businesses have a harder time competing globally. decades ago, congress created a tax on the value of the goods imported through our ports to ensure that no american port would suffer under dredging, yet for years congress has failed to use this to keep our ports in good order. it's gotten so bad that the american association of ports they're said available less than 30% of the time. ships have to wait for low tide harbor.

and those costs ripple back all the way to the wall etc. of average americans. don't think it's right for americans to pay for a tax and failure to use there tax that we promised. we may be increasing the amount of the harbor maintenance trust fund that we're spending in this bill but it's still $is00 million less than what our -- $100 million less than what our ports are old. by the start of f.y. 2015 we'll owe our ports nearly $9 billion that should have gone to the investment in our ports that would create jobs and keep us globally competitive. we can't wait any more. we need to fully utilize the harbor maintenance trust fund as soon as possible. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. frelinghuysen may i ask the -- ms. mr. rahall:: may i ask the ranking member, ms. kaptur, are ou ready to close?

ms. kaptur: we are prepared to close. mr. frelinghuysen: we'll yield back. ms. kaptur: we yield back our time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. ms. frelinghuysen: yield back as well. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair may accord priority and recognition to a member offering an amendment who has caused it to be printed in the designated place in the congressional record. those amendments will be considered as read and the clerk will read. the clerk: be it enacted the following sums are appropriated for the fiscal year 2014, namely, title 1, corps of engineers, civil, department of the army, corps of engineers, civil. appropriations shall be for authorized functions pertaining to river and harbor, flood and stormwater reduction and related efforts. investigations, $90 million.

onstruction, $1,343,000,000. mississippi river and tributaries, $249 million. operation and maintenance, $2,682,000,000. regulatory program, $193 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. formally used site, remedial action program, $100 million. flood control and coastal mergencies, $28 million. expenses, $182 million to remain available until

eptember 30, 2015. office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works, $5 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. administrative provision, the revolving fund shall be available during the current fiscal year for purchase of passenger motor vehicles. general provisions, corps of engineers, civil, section 101, none of the funds shall be available through a reprogramming of funds -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. i want to place additional information in the record as we proceed with amendments. in looking at our bill, in looking at some of the accounts essentially for the water account, energy and water account and the general

provisions, there was an excellent article in this week's "international herald tribune," and it talks about sound investment and i would like to submit it and will just read a portion of it very briefly here. and it talks about how the rate of economic growth in germany is surpassing our own just now. and the unemployment rate as a result has dropped to 5.3% and alling further, much lower than in the united states. and it investigates why that is the case. and it talks quite a bit here about the german economy having made investments whose future benefits will far outpay repayment costs. and this bill in its accounts essentially should be doing

that, but unfortunately cuts back on some of the most significant for job growth. the article goes on to say that the u.s. economy is still in doll drums and that is -- doldrums and that is because many machines are idle. if the country waits it will need to bid them away from other tasks and also because of the sluggish economy, the materials required for the work are now relatively inexpensive. so this is really the time to encourage investment in our economy, to lift the entire system. the article goes on to talk about the fact that in germany there had been certain austerity backers, they call them, who urged preposterously that infrastructure repairs be postponed until government budgets were in balance. but, it says, would they also

tell an indebted family to postpone fixing a leaky roof until it paid off all of its debts? not only would the repair grow more costly with the delay, but the water damage would mount in the interim. family should pay off debts, yes, but not in ways that actually increase their indebtedness in the longer term. i found this article particularly instructive as we move bills, move amendments to the floor and move this bill forward. austerity advocates in the article object that more deficit spending now will burden grandchildren with crushing debt. that might be true if the proposal were to build bigger houses and stage more lavish parties with borrowed money. but in fact the dollars were being invested in the nation in

projects that were creating opportunity and infrastructure that would advance the worth of the nation in decades hence. so i think that we ought to think about this as we proceed title by title in this bill and ask ourself the question why it is that many of the important accounts, such as the corps of engineers and several of our speakers today have referenced those, has been cut by $104 million compared to this year's enacted level and falls far short of the investments we need in one of the fundamentals in the country and that is in water systems. . madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that this article be placed. the chair: without objection. ms. kaptur: from the herald

tribune. the chair: will be covered under general leave. ms. kaptur: i also wanted to point out and place in the record some of the severe cutbacks in this bill with more specificity. the renewable energy, energy reliability, and efficiency accounts is $971 million less than the 2013 enacted level. and $1.96 billion less than the president's request. the department of energy office f science is $223 million less than 2013's enacted level, and $499.8 million less than the president's request. the advanced research projects agency is $215 million less than in 2013 enacted level, and $329 million less than the president's request. the funding for the environmental cleanup is $243 million less than the 2013

enacted level, and 1 $133 million less than the president's request. the nuclear nonproliferation account is $334 million less thn the 2013 enacted level. and $40 million less than the president's request. in terms of the army corps of engineers, it is $104 million less than the 2013 enacted level. in the water resources projects within the department of interior, there is $104 million reduction less than 2013 enacted level, and $85 million less than the president's request. when we think about the cumulative impact, it's extraordinary. i ask unanimous consent that this data be placed in the record as well. the chair: it will be covered under general leave. the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek

recognition? >> i ask to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam speaker, i rise to commend the committee on appropriations for its leadership in resolving the nuclear waste issue. this is certainly a very crucial issue for all americans. last year i would remind us that 326-81 in favor of the shame cuss amendment to increase the bill's funding for yucca mountain license review. this year the committee is once again reflected the will of the house not just by funding the license review but also providing the department of energy the authority to transfer funds to the n.r.c., nuclear regulatory commission. mr. upton: it's my understanding that this provision gives both d.o.e. and the n.r.c. the flexibility to make sure that the yucca mountain licensing case gets optimum resources where needed to make real progress in meeting our nation's need for a safe repository to isolate our spent nuclear fuel and high level defense waste.

i yield to mr. frelinghuysen. mr. frelinghuysen: the gentleman from michigan is correct. the department of energy would have the flexibility to transfer funds as needed to the nuclear regulatory commission either from funds appropriated in our bill or from funds previously appropriated for this purpose to remain unspent. this language will also allow the department of energy to reprogram funds, subsequently transfer them to the n.r.c. for this purpose, if necessary, to ensure no one can claim access to adequate funds is a barrier to completing the review of the in license application. mr. upton: the gentleman from new jersey, this approach does build on last year's momentum to get the job done. consumers and taxpayers have paid over $15 million, that's b as in big, to find out whether in would be a safe repository for civilian spent nuclear fuel and defense nuclear waste. they deserve an answer, yes,

they do, and under this bill they are going to get one. i would commend all the members of the appropriations committee for this and i would urge all members to vote yes on this appropriation bill for f.y. 2014 so we can make additional resources available to perform the critical work. i yield again to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for his comments and i would also like to recognize his leadership on this issue, as the chairman of the house energy and commerce committee. he's worked hard with his colleagues to ensure that the will of the people is heard. the administration must apply the law that congress already enacted and get this job done. we look forward to working with the gentleman to get this appropriation enacted and get this license wrapped up at the nuclear regulatory commission. i yield to you. mr. upton: i want to say again, i want to compliment you and your staff. this has been a major issue for us for a good number of years. something that needs to get done. i look forward to continuing that strong relationship as we look to the future. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madame -- madam chair. the dispatch with which the committee has moved forward made it not possible for me to offer the amendment that i was going to offer formally. i just intend to deal with the issue very briefly for the committee and look forward to trying to work with the committee going forward. six years ago in section 2032 of wrda 2007, congress directed the president to issue a report describing the vulnerability of the united states to damage from flooding. in addition to examining the risk to public health and property, congress instructed the president to undertake an assessment of existing programs to address flooding, the effectiveness of these programs, and recommendations about how to improve them.

unfortunately, despite almost daily reminders that we see about flooding in the news, this report has yet to be written. the president's requested funding for this study in its annual budget request from the corps of engineers. the fiscal year 2014 budget calls the study a, quote, high priority evaluation of the nation's vulnerability to england and coastal fund flooding and the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of existing program strategies. i agree, the amount i would -- amendment i would have offered would seek to provide funds to the corps to finally undertake the study. the need is clear. flooding is america's most common natural disaster. in 2002 to 2011, total flood insurance claim averaged more than $2ings 9 billion -- $2.9 billion a year. last year a fema report indicated rising sea levels and severe weather are expected to increase in the areas of the

united states at risk by 45% by the end of this crentry. the federal government led by fema and the corps of engineers plays a significant role in flood damage reduction and emergency response, reducing flood damage someone of the core missions of the corps. it builds levees, flood walls, and restores natural floodplains. our current understanding of the actions necessary to reduce the vulnerability of flooding and reduce the amount we would spend to respond to flooding is lacking. if we could do this report, it would be very helpful. the corps of engineers spent $1.5 billion annually on flood control activities in the last decade, and congress has provided over $26 billion in additional supplemental appropriations, responding to flooding and other natural disasters over the same period. despite massive expenditures on flood control, flood damage has increased at alarming rates, long-term average flood damage

are more than double what they were earlier this century. obviously we are not doing everything right. the cost of the study would only be $1 million. the investigation program is being funded at $90 million. in order to reduce government spending, we need to know how much money we are continuing to throw at projects that may or may not help. i would hope that we could work with the committee to make sure that we have the best information available before the core commits to even more projects. i would hope that we could work to make sure that this comes to pass. it will make the job of the committee easier and will make a difference for americans across the country. thank you, madam chair. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 9, line 15, section 102. none of the funds may be used to award any contract that commits

funds beyond the amounts appropriated for that program. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the a pidity with which this process is moving we might be dealing with the transportation rather than the energy and water appropriations. mr. garamendi: of there my amendment apparently passed without an opportunity to present it. we just heard our colleague from oregon speak to the issue of flooding. i represent 200 miles of the sacramento river. yet this bill ignores the need for this congress to protect human life. .670 billion nds $7 on nuclear weapons and cuts the money for levee protection.

human life is at risk in my district. and yet this bill ignores the reality of flooding. when a flood occurs in my district, it's not in the summertime, it is not warm water, it is very, very cold water. and thousands of lives are at risk. yet the majority cannot seem to find the money necessary to protect human life. but plenty of money for nuclear weapons. is this the priority? $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons and not enough money to protect the lives of the citizens of this nation from real danger, real floods? it's really going to happen gentlemen and ladies of the majority. the corps of engineer budget is decimated, and for the last three years we have not been able to get one new project, even though human life is at

risk. is that the priority? apparently human life is not. projects in my district, the hamilton project for the last three years has been in the president's budget. yet no new startsdz prohibitions -- starts prohibitions, place us in a dangerous situation in my district. apparently we need more nuclear weapons but not more levees. is that the majority's position? $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons and not enough for a $15 million project to protect the sit dense of hamilton sit -- citizens of hamilton city. you should be ashamed. that that's your priority. this particular appropriation bill is an abomination.

it is a disgrace. it is a representation of the wrong priorities. but yet that's what you want to do. i suppose if this had not been a railroad and moving things so fast, i would have had an amendment opportunity. to simply say new starts, vital to the life and well-being of citizens in this nation, should be in this bill. i didn't have a chance to do that because of the railroad you are operating here. run it as you will, but at the end of the day there will be human life at stake. floods, and quite likely in the 200 miles that i -- sacramento river and its tributary that i represent. this is wrong-headed, this is wrong. your priorities could not be worse. you should be ashamed. that this is the priority you

put. levees will not be built. human life will be at risk. but presumably that's what you want. ms. kaptur: i wonder for those that don't come from your part of the country, talk about what it's like to face that possibility of nonrepair of the facilities that you are discussing. the chair: will direct the comments to the chair. mr. garamendi: i'll be happy to direct my comments to the chair. madam chair, the priorities in his bill are dead wrong. in sacramento 20-foot potential water in the river time with the water temperature somewhere in the 20 degree range. perhaps human life can last 10 minutes, maybe. that's the priority. hamilton city, the same situation. marysville, the same situation. a winter storm in california and

a levee break is deadly. this is not new orleans where you can stay in the water for a few hours. this is cold water temperature. and yet, madam chair, the majority's position is to build more nuclear weapons and not to build levees. ok. when the flood occurs, and it will, what will happen? could we not take money out of the army corps of engineers? apparently not. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam speaker, i rise today of the energy and water appropriations bill on the floor which reflects the need to spend taxpayer money responsibly in light of our budgetary problems.

this represents a decrease of $2.9 billion below and $700 million below the postsequester level. mr. calvert: this bill provides critical resources for important projects and programs that ensure our nation ontinues to have access to affordable, reliable and clean water and energy. the bill also provides much-needed funding for our country's flood control projects that are instructed by the army -- constructed by the army corps of engineers. 42 district, the california project, largest west of the mississippi river, i'm pleased that the corps and the energy and water subcommittee continue to recognize the project's importance of providing adequate flood protection. we recently lost 2,200 megawatts with a permanent

shutdown of the nuclear power plant. a significant generation shutdown of this nature creates tremendous uncertainty for ratepayers to our region. of course, energy production challenges are by no means exclusive to southern california. it's exactly why the energy programs in this bill are necessary. i'm particularly pleased that our subcommittee has funded energy programs by taking an all-of-the-above approach that includes renewable, nuclear and fossil fuel. americans rightfully expect affordable access to clean, affordable and reliable energy and water. as a member of the energy and water subcommittee i believe we've done our best to meet those expectations with this bill and i encourage my colleagues to support the bill. in closing, i just want to thank subcommittee chairman frelinghuysen as well as chairman rogers for their leadership in crafting a good and responsible bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts eek recognition?

>> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: madam chair, i'd just like to raise an issue money th the amount of in this bill that we are appropriating for the u.s. army corps of engineers' congress construction account. i have heard -- engineers' construction account. i have heard individual projects in their districts that affect their constituentsies and i'm totally in agreement with that on both sides of the aisle. i do want to acknowledge the priority that should be recognized in this bill, and that is recognizing the impacts of these large coastal storms. i happen to represent the port of boston and the communities south of boston along the south shore. a beautiful area. great number of towns with great history there. while they were not affected to

the degree that new york and new jersey were during hurricane sandy, superstorm sandy, a lot of their infrastructure was damaged to the point of near collapse. so there's a great need for sea wall reconstruction. they withstood that impact. they did the job they were intended to do at the time they were constructed. but i feel this bill in the current form continues to undermine the ability of the army corps of engineers to keep pace with the needed maintenance and reconstruction of the infrastructure. call to mind to the whole initiative here and what our priorities should be. we are in many cases across the country the beneficiaries of people who came before us and made the necessary investments in infrastructure. they saw the need and we today

and up until today have enjoyed a competitive advantage against our international neighbors because our infrastructure is there. and there is a definite increase on the number of these catastrophic storms. seems like in my area we have 100-year storms every three, four years now. and there's definitely something going on with climate change and the intensity of these storms. it seems appropriate that we try to recognize the need here. i notice we're putting an awful lot of money into fossil fuel research and not nearly enough money to recognize the impact that climate change has already had on a lot of our coastal areas. we should be reinvesting in that infrastructure so that we're not faced with the total collapse that we saw in new york and new jersey with

superstorm sandy. so i just would call on my colleagues across the aisle in a request for bipartisanship and for recognizing the long-term interests of americans across the country, democrats and republicans, in making sure we use a commonsense approach in this bill, and i think we are offcourse with respect to the defunding of the construction account for the army corps of engineers. not just for my district. i'm not saying just for the communities that i represent who do have considerable needs because of recent storms. i'm talking about all across the country. i'm talking about republican districts as well as democratic districts. we have a wonderful organization here in the army corps of engineers. they do a fantastic job. we get more than our moneys

worth. we put a dollar into the army corps of engineers and we get $5 or $7 back depending on the project. i think it's wise to have the resources so they can perform the reconstruction, in some cases, and maintenances in other cases of the sea walls along the east and west coast to make sure we are indeed prepared for these storms that are inevitably coming. so with that i have an later on at the appropriate time in this bill where i'll be asking for additional money for the construction account of the u.s. army corps of engineers. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> madam chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, madam

chair. it cuts $2.5 billion below the iscal year 2013 enacted level. it's -- mr. boustany: thank you, madam chair. it cuts $2.5 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. that's an achievement of the environment we're working in today. what i find impressive of the bill and what's been done by the chairman is the bill sets some very good priorities. in fact, there's $2 billion for navigation projects and studies to advance american competitiveness and our ability to export which is critical for growth in this u.s. economy. it includes $1 billion of appropriation from the harbor maintenance trust fund. this is a record level. this is $200 million more than what we saw in fiscal year 2013. something that's absolutely critical because we know that our federal ports, our harbors is essential if we're going to be able to ship goods overseas.

getting a dredging fund is absolutely necessary because we lose economic efficiency. in fact, on the mississippi river, every time we lose a foot of draft, it's about $1 million per ship per day in lost economic activity. if we're going to get this economy growing, create value, create jobs we have to export. and to export we need waterways that allows us to do that. according to the army corps of engineers, many ports and harbors have not maintained dude to the inability over time. this bill takes a strong step forward in order to correct that. i want to bring attention to the fact that america's infrastructure, its ports, its dams, waterways is old and has not received the appropriate investment and have often been ignored. it's cost us time, it's cost us money, it's cost us economic growth and it's cost us jobs.

clearly if we're expanding these trade agreements, looking at the pacific with the transpacific partnership, looking at a trans-atlantic partnership, we need to have our ports working at maximum efficiency if we're going to grow this economy. also, i want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee and full committee as well for including language from my colleague, congressman rodney alexander. this is language included in the bill requiring the department of energy to report on its plans to address the backlog of natural gas export applications, liquefied natural gas applications and to encourage the timely completion of this approval process. given the fact that so many of these applicants have been waiting for well over a year to get a decision from the department of energy is just unacceptable to this this kind of a backlog -- to have this kind of a backlog at a time when this will help us expand trade, help us improve trade

deficit. it will help create jobs. it will help us with -- actually help interestingly help stabilize the price of natural gas so we'll see more drilling and helps our energy security in the long run. so by expediting this process, getting the department of energy to be held to account on the backlog of these permits is critically important because these companies have invested millions of dollars in this permitting process. and to be sitting in limbo is just simply unacceptable. so i'm very, very happy that congressman alexander's language has been included in this base bill. i want to thank the chairman for doing this. with that, madam chair, i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the clerk will read. he clerk: page 9, line 22, section 10 -- ms. kaptur: madam chair. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: madam chair, i'd like to yield an additional

five minutes to the very abled gentleman from california, congressman john garamendi. the chair: the gentlelady may not yield blocks of time. the gentlelady may not yield blocks of time. ms. kaptur: i'd like to yield to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam chair. a few minutes ago i talked bout priorities. $7.6 billion-plus for nuclear weapons. we just heard a gentleman and s the issue of locks levees and ports. projects in my district for the ports, for deepening the channels, for rebuilding and xpanding the economic activity of this nation will not be funded. do we really need -- do we really need to spend an additional $7.6 billion-plus on

nuclear weapons when we have over 8,000 of them, russia 7,000, china 250, do we really need to spend the money there or do we need to spend it on our economic activity, as the gentleman just said? there's not enough money in the army of -- army corps of engineers' budget to improve all of the projects needed so our ports on the east coast, gulf coast, west coast can be competitive. but apparently we have enough money. why don't we take some money out of this program and put it where it will be immediately beneficial? it's a matter of priorities. where your money is is where your heart is. ok. it's not where my heart is. talked about all-of-the-above energy. we ought to talk about all-of-the-above energy. but yet arpa-e where we create

the new science, the new technology, the new programs that will provide us with -- the improvement of old energy sources, gut it. gut it. 87% reduction. the office of science, where we do real research, where we really can do all of the above, whether it's coal or oil or renewables, gut it. a 73% reduction. where are our priorities? where are the priorities of the house of representatives? is it to build more nuclear weapons? by the grace of god we'll never use, 8,000 of them, or is it to build a levee or is it to build -- or is it to make sure that

the researchers at our universities and laboratories have the money they need to really deal with the problem of the future which is climate change? it's about priorities. madam chair, it's about priorities and i ask my colleagues through you, of course, what are the priorities that are listed very clear in your legislation? ms. kaptur: if the gentleman will yield? mr. garamendi: i'd be happy to yield back. ms. kaptur: for the army corps of engineers, the gentleman is correct. if we look back to the years 2011 and 2012, the bills terminated or suspended over 300 projects across this country. that is not an insignificant number. that is a very significant number. it's one of the reasons we aren't allowing -- we weren't able to put in new starts because we got so many other wounded and casualties standing in line waiting for assistance across the country, including

he communities you represent. mr. garamendi: thank you. i might just point out that with sequestration this year, we took $250 million out of the corps of engineers' budget. so we're building on a lower base. this is going to be tragedy and ragic. but, madam chair, these are our priorities -- excuse me theerks are not my priorities, -- excuse me, these are not my priorities, these are the majority's priorities. ms. kaptur: thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the opportunity to come down and speak about a very important issue that i know is important to you as well as myself. because the great lakes are facing a crisis right now. the great lakes navigation system is a critical international waterway that extends from the western part

of lake superior, in fact, that point in the western part of lake superior is further west than st. louis, missouri. further west than st. louis, missouri, the gateway to the west, and it ex tends all the way a-- he can tenledses all the way to the atlantic -- extends all the way to the atlantic ocean. 2,400 miles. this portion, the u.s. portion of the systems includes 140 harbors, 60 of which are deemed as, quote, commercial, and 80 as recreational and harbors of refuge, and over 600 miles of maintained navigational channels. the system can handle 200 million tons of cargo that generate and sustain nearly in the good-paying jobs eight great lakes states, not to mention what happens to our friends to the north and east in the canadian provinces and how important that relationship is with our -- with that trade that goes on. mr. huizenga: although the army corps of engineers' maintenance

account has increased, the annual budget for the corpses' maintenance of channels in the great lakes has remained virtually unchanged during that same period. while we know that those challenges that we're facing as a nation financially and fiscally, but that, madam chair, does not seem right or fair to me and it certainly is not an acknowledgment of the importance of great lakes to our vital economy. there's 18 million cubic yards of sentiment right now clogging the great lakes ports and waterways, which has reduced e amount of cargo ships by over 500,000 tons over the course of the navigation season. to put this number into context, i own a gravel pit. i have dump trucks that go out and around. and a normal-sized standard dump truck is 10 yards. if you're going out there to put in context 18 million yards of sediment, that would be like

1.8 million dump trucks loads of sediment that is out there right now. in fiscal year 2012, the corps received $45 million for maintenance dredging and $ 5 million for navigation -- $95 million for navigation instructional maintenance in the great lakes but it's going to cost over $200 million to restore ports and waterways to what their designed depth and width is. to make up that shortfall, the state of michigan recently authorized over $20 million, state funds only, and emergency dredging funds to ensure that commerce, tourism and jobs remained available in port cities big and small. i commend the state of michigan. however, the federal government has a constitutional requirement to maintain those interstate commerce through those ports and in and among the states as well as internationally. the funds that come from the harbor maintenance trust fund re paid for as a user fee of

0.125% on the value of cargo ship. in the previous year that equated to $1.7 billion, which was paid into the fund but only $804 million was used for dredging and maintenance of our harbors because the trust fund frankly has been raided over the years to pay for other projects and unrepresented -- unrelated projects sometimes. i'd like to thank my colleague for working towards a solution to this problem by reprioritizing spending, which is really what this is all about. we know we have to reprioritize and reflect a billion-dollar disbursement from the harbor maint nance trust fund to the bill and encourage -- maintenance trust fund to the bill and encourage spending in the future. i know there had been specific language and i would have offered an amendment that would have clarified making sure that the $30 million that is put in for small ports and subsistence ports would have been more clear. but in the meantime, we must

act before the crisis in the great lakes grows worse and i thank my friend from new jersey for the work that he has done on this bill and while i'd prefer more clarity, i'm satisfied with the intent of the committee to help our orts, big and small. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. >> i want to thank the gentleman for being a strong advocate for maintaining his waterways and the nation's waterways. mr. frelinghuysen: these ports and channels are very important not only to the great lakes' economy but to our national economy. i want to commend him for his attention to the needs of his constituents. he's extremely knowledgeable. from a professional point of view. and certainly as a member of congress, devoted to the needs of his constituents. from mittee has heard

many members, including those from the great lakes, concerned that the administration's budget processing has left small, remote substantive ports across the nation unable to continue to conduct business due to inadequate or oftentimes nonexistent maintenance. hese are what prompted the committee to include a minimum of $30 million to be made available to such ports. the great lakes ports will certainly be eligible for this funding. i believe our bill addresses his concerns to the greatest priority possible in light of other priorities, which he mentioned in our bill, which is obviously balancing the federal budget and controlling spending. i want to thank our colleague for bringing the concerns of the great lakes ports to our attention. we'll do our level best to work with you. we honor your request and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 9, line 22, section 103, none of the funds small be used to word any

continuing contract that commits additional funding from the inland waterways trust fund. section 104, not later than 120 days after the chief of engineers -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: has the gentleman sent his amendment to the desk? mr. hastings: i just a moment ago sent it up there to the clerk. the chair: the gentleman is advised we have not yet reached that point in the reading. the clerk will read. the clerk: shall submit the report to the appropriate committees of the congress. section 105, the secretary is authorized to implement measures recommended to prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the great lakes.

the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. my district has shoreline -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kelly of pennsylvania. page 10, line 21. after the period, insert the following, further, the army corps of engineers, in coordination with the director of the united states fish and wildlife service, the national park service and the united states geological survey shall lead a multiagency effort to slow the spread of asian carp in the ohio river basin and providing by high-level technical assistance, coordination, best practices and support to state and local government strategies to slow and eventually eliminate the threat posed by asian carp. to the maximum extent practiceble, the multiagency effort shall imply lessons learned and best practices, such as those developed under the management and control plan for bighead, black, grass and

silver carps in the united states, november, 2007, and the asian carp control strategic framework. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you for allowing me to come forward and talk about this amendment. mr. kelly: part of the district that i represent is lake erie and it's also -- i have the ohio river watershed. so my amendment would have allowed the army corps to combat the asian carp in the ohio river. there are over 30 states affected by asian carp and this invasive fish is already throughout the midwest. this is about protecting regional economy. the fishing industry and the livelihoods of all of us who rely on the water for our jobs. this invasive species significantly altered the habitat, they crowd out native fish and they're a threat to boaters. i've worked very closely with tomby, the pennsylvania

fish and boat commission, along with legislate ors who represent that -- legislators who represent that potentially affected areas. to develop and study plans of actions to deal with this invasive species. this is one measure, the great lakes fisheries generate u.s. economic activity of approximately $7 billion, that's $7 billion annually. and our native fish populations like walleye, perch and lake herring would be devastated by the asian carp establishment. threatening this industry and the livelihoods of all those who depend on this ecosystem's health. i want to thank you again, mr. chairman, for allowing me to bring this forward. and i hope in the future we can take a look at it but i am going to withdraw the amendment. thank you very much and i yield back. ms. kaptur: will the gentleman yield? the chair: without objection, the gentleman the amendment is withdrawn. -- without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i seek to identify my side with the gentleman's remarks on the importance of

the asian carp issue. to the freshwater lakes of our country. and certainly to lake erie. he and i share that. the lake is neither a -- is neither republican nor democratic. it is the largest fishery in the entire great lakes system which contain 20% of the world's fresh surface water. and lake erie actually has more fish than all the other great lakes combined. honestly, this asian carp threat is truly a nightmare for those people and the multi billion-dollar industries, the maritime industry, our fisheries, our tourism centers. and especially appreciate the gentleman's desire to have a multiagency effort and more dispatch within the executive branch to deal with the possibility of these fish, these very destructive fish coming in and destroying our

perch, our walleye, our native fish. it is a very, very worrisome invasive species to our lakes. did the gentleman wish to make further comments? mr. kelly: if the gentlelady would yield, i want to thank you very much for your comments. also, ms. mccollum was very aware of. this all of us who represent the great lakes area understand the danger that this fish is bringing into our great lakes and to the fishing industry. it is unbelievable the amount of damage that's being done. not only to the fishing industry but also boaters. and if anyone has seen film, this is a fish that comes out the water and goes after boaters, gets very easilying a are a vate. you don't have to be a motor on -- easily aggravated. you don't have to have a motor on the boat. you can be paddling. i have seven grandchildren. these are small people, this fish is 70 pounds when it reaches its full maturity. it is a voracious eater. it is going to totally take

over the great lakes. it will ruin our fishing industry. i can't tell you how much i appreciate your comments and your concern and also i know on both sides, this is not a republican or a democratic issue. this is an american issue that has to be looked into and i thank you very much for your comments. ms. kaptur: reclaiming my time, i desire to work with the gentleman in any way possible. the gentleman is right. this fish is like a guided missile. except there are millions of them. and until you actually see it happen, you don't believe it. it's like some kind of movie, the twilight zone, except it's real. nd it came from the fishing -- the aqwaculture industry in mississippi. they had an accident and they brought these fish in to do the cleaning in the fish tanks. except when the walls were breached they started moving north in the mississippi river and now they're about 30 miles from the chicago harbor. and through the ship canal there, they're about 30 miles from there. but they're coming up into the

st. joseph river in indiana. they've caught some there. we don't know about the ohio river. but the river which i represent, the largest river that flows into the great lakes, which is a spawning area for walleye, for example, this species is really a predator and one that could wipe out our entire multibillion-dollar fishing industry in the great lakes. and there is no scientific solution at this point. there is no scientific solution. so, i hope the administration is hearing us, i hope the army corps and the department of interior and others are hearing us. our country needs a real solution to prevent the spread of this predator into our freshwater lakes and it is an unsolved challenge for the nation. so i thank the gentleman so much for coming to the floor today. you have my full support and i know the chairman of the full committee, mr. frelinghuysen, will work with us in any way possible. mr. kelly: thank you very much, madam chairman. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 10, line 22,

section 106, the secretary may transfer funds to mitigate for fisheries' loss due to corps of engineers projects. section 107, none of the funds may be used by the corps of engineers to develop or enforce -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam chair woman. i relate to asian carp. i certainly agree it's a very troubling situation. in fact, we have the snake heads in this part of the country that can walk on dry land from river to river and pond to pond. so something's happening and it's not good. but i'm glad that the issue was raised. but, madam chairwoman, i do have an amendment with our colleague, john dingell.

the amendment simply strikes section 107 of this bill. and the reason for doing that is that section 107 would prevent the corps of engineers from updating regulations and guidance defining what waters and wetlands are subject to the clean water act. even though everyone, including industry, agrees there's confusion regarding what waters fall under federal jurisdiction. section 107 would deliberately continue this confusion. in fact, many private commercial interests have gone on record in support of clarifying the term waters of the united states. but that clarification would be prohibited under section 107 of this bill. madam chairwoman, there have been two supreme court cases, solid waste in 2001 and another

in 2006. combined these two rulings have created confusion and uncertainty regarding the limits of the federal jurisdiction under the clean air act. the court called into question the federal government's jurisdiction the further away the water was from where you could float a boat all year long. in both cases, though, a majority of the court could not agree on where federal jurisdiction should end. our intermittans streams and rivers that only flow seasonally, are they under federal jurisdiction? 7% of the federal stream miles in the united states fall intermittent or femoral. even more -- importantly, more than 117

million americans get some of these rinking water from very streams that don't flow year round. section 107 of this bill, though, would make sure that these sources of drinking water remain at an increased risk of pollution. with more severe droughts and climate change, the protection of our waters and wetlands are of greater concern than ever. that's why i mention the asian carp, the snake heads, severe things are happening but the most important thing that's happening is that climate change is creating a very extreme threat to every american and we're seeing it in bodies of water across the country. before my colleagues suggest we shouldn't worry about climate change, that states are in the absence of federal authority, i tell my friends that argument

doesn't hold -- let me use the expression -- it doesn't hold waters in states that use the federal definition to run their program. 48 states share common water bodies. without federal jurisdiction, no state can tell an upstream state what to do unless we have a baseline federal minimum standard that all states must abide by. now, through a public comment process and appropriate congressional oversight, we can allow the administration to finalize its guidance and move forward on a formal rulemaking progress. or we can define navigable water ourselves. why would we do that when we can complain about the administration not doing its job? two years ago the corps and e.p.a. provided clarity on this issue. they took comment on the draft for 90 days and received over 200,000 comments on the guidance, comments that were

overwhelmingly favorable. the draft guidance provides a more predictable and consistent procedure for identifying waters and wetlands protected under the clarity. it focuses on protecting small -- under the clean air act. it focuses on protecting small water waist and protecting adjacent wetlands to keep communities safe from floods. the guidance also main feigns tanse all of the existing -- maintains all of the existing exemptions and identifies specific water bodies to which it does not apply things like artificial lakes and ponds and other types of drainages and ditches. it does not extend federal protection to any waters not historically protected under the clean air act, and it's fully consistent with the law and the decisions and instructions of the supreme court. so i think we should let the administration go forward, provide greater clarity, and we can only do that by striking section 107. thank you, madam chairwoman. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to strike section 107 of the bill. section 107 prohibits the corps of engineers from developing, adopting and implementing,ed a minute straighting or enforcing ny rule defining waters of the united states. mr. gibbs: this is aimed at the so-called guidance which the environmental protection agency and the corps of engineers have developed to expand the extent of waters covered by the clean air act. the so-called guidance goes far beyond merely clarifying the scope of waters subject to the clean air act programs. this guidance has been sitting around for nearly three years and is acting as the defect of the law. the guidance would substantially change federal policy with respect to which waters fall under the jurisdiction of the clean air act and significantly increase

the scope of the federal government's power to regulate waters and land associated with those waters. the effect of the guidance will be to reverse the decisions by the united states supreme court that recognized limits to the federal government's regulatory authority into undermining the long-standing federal-state partnerships. this will result in permitting delays, added costs and burdens for communities, farmers, small businessmen and other americans. the administration has issued the so-called guidance and has refused to go to the rulemaking process which violates the principles of the administrative procedures act, the a.p.a., and the intent of congress in the enactment -- when they enacted the law. the a.p.a. set the standards for the activities and rulemaking for all rulemaking regulatory agencies and is designed to make sure they use open, uniformed and fair procedures. this requirement of the a.p.a. are not mere for malts. developing its guidance --

formalitys, developing its guidance, they have ignored state agencies, environmental groups as well as members of congress, including almost half of the house of representatives, to proceed through the normal rulemaking procedures and has avoided consulting with the states which are the federal agency partners in implementing the clean air act. this amendment condones the administration's willingness to ignore the requirements of the a.p.a. and supports the administration's federal jurisdictional power grab in the clean air act. i urge members to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. dingell: if you like confusion, keep the status quo. and oppose the amendment. if you want to get clarity and you want to understand and you

want to get investment and progress and if you want to have people understand what the law is, support the amendment. the proposal that has been put forward by the corps of engineers is clarity itself. it does not change the decision wrongly made by the supreme court no matter how much i might dislike that decision. what it does is, it allows people to know what the law is as set forth by the supreme court. for the corps of engineers not carrying out its proper responsibilities under the law going back before 1899 is an act of extraordinary unwisdom and stupidity. my colleagues on the other side do not understand the issue. the simple fact of the matter is all this does is to allow

the corps of engineers to tell the people of the united states what the law is with regard to what is navigable waters that may be affected by pollution, ditching, draining and doing other things. so when you vote to strike the section, you are not changing the law. you are allowing the corps of engineers to set forth what the rules happen to be. and you're allowing the supreme court to bring clarity to the decisionmaking of the united states. and seeing to it that people may then go forward and invest and do the other things that are necessary in the light of supreme ion of the court, which again i repeat is not changed. not by the amendment which is offered by my friend from virginia.

i urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by mr. moran of virginia, because it brings clarity to a confused situation and it makes plain and apparent what the law is. and if you -- so if you want to get progress so that people will know how they're going to invest in doing things that affect their waters of the united states, supporting the amendment is the way to do it. and failing to support the amendment is to assure confusion will continue to exist and that businesses, industry and the communities of the united states that need to act upon the waters to see to it they're protected and they are preserved, you're seeing to it by opposing the amendment that that cannot be done. the supreme court was wrong in

the decision which they made. i was here on the floor when we agreed that the navigable waters are all of the waters of the united states. the supreme court was either oo ignoreant or too lazy to -- ignorant or too lazy to read that debate. but the legislative history of the law is clear. but i repeat, this does not move us forward back to the old ay, and it does not change the unfortunate decision of the supreme court. what it does is it assures that for the first time since this kind of amendment was offered on the floor that we're able to finally begin to move forward deal with the laws that affects 1/2 gabblet, the clean air act -- navigablity, the

clean air act, to ensuring that business and industry understand what the law is. to oppose this amendment is to ensure there is more litigation which will cause more delay and more difficulty in terms of achieving our purpose of having american citizens be able to enjoy the water in accordance with the law as the corps of engineers will set it out so that everyone will know what the law is rather than the ngress seeing to it that we're incapable of having a clear pronouncement of what the law is as made by the agency which has been responsible to do so under the law. i urge you to support the amendment. i urge you to strike section 107, and i urge you to get this country going forward on a very

important matter which is being thoroughly on have i indicated by people who don't know nothing about the matter. i urge you to adopt this matter. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: mr. moran and i had a conversation about this. contrary to what the gentleman from michigan said, i do understand the issue. understanding it is why i'm opposed to it. in 2006, the supreme court determined that the e.p.a. and the corps of engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters under the clean air act. now, you might disagree with that supreme court decision. tough luck. hey made the decision. in accordance with this decision, the term navigable waters has long been the phrase used to limit federal intrusion with regards to the clean water act's authority.

not navigable waters are currently regulated by the state. everybody that stands ups and talks assumes that if it is a nonnavigable water, that nobody is regulating it. in fact, the states are regulating those things. however, last year the corps of engineers and the e.p.a. issued guidance that would expand the jurisdiction of the clean water act to non-navigable interstate waters, effectively resulting in a massive expansion of the federal government's authority to increase the number of waters subject to the water quality standards including irrigation canals, drainage ditches and other things. deciding how watcher is -- water is used should be the responsibility of state and local officials who are familiar with the people and local issues. if all intrastate waters are regulated by the federal government, the language could be broadly interpreted to include everything within a state including groundwater. as a result the reach of the

federal jurisdiction would be so broad that it could significantly restrict land owners' act to make decisions about their own property and local governments' ability to plan for their own development. the language in the bill protects the authority of the states to prevent the army corps from expanding its regulations to include train state bodies of water under the -- intrastate bodies of water under the act. clarity is needed to this issue and the gentleman from michigan mentioned clarity. i will tell you, clarity simply for clarity's sake is not an answer. death is a clarity. it's not necessarily the outcome you want, though. so doing this just so that you have clarity in it is not the right direction to go. congress does need to provide that clarity but not the agencies through the regulatory process, the supreme court has already determined that the army corps does not have the authority to do what it is proposing and i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chairman, i am rising i hope to provide some clarity to this by quoting directly from the guidance that the agency's given us. it's important to remember that this is a guidance, not a rule. the obama administration, president obama has repeatedly and proudly said that if congress won't act, he will. last week he said he's going to stand up and through executive order do all that he can to try to bring carbon emissions under the jurisdiction of the federal government and try to restrict co-232 by executive order -- co-2 by executive order. mr. culberson: here the obama administration is doing what the law says they can't do. and that is expand the jurisdiction of the e.p.a. and the army corps by guidance, not by using a rule. the law says they have to issue a rule, get public input, have hearings. here they simply got their lawyers together and issued guidance to their agencies around the country and to quote directly from the guidance, the

obama administration directs, quote, the agencies to interpret waters in the region to be the watershed boundary defined by the geographic area that drains to the nearest downstream traditional navigable water or interstate water through a single point of entry, closed quote. the geographic boundary? every stream, every rive let, no matter how -- rivulet, no matter how vertical it is, the supreme court in the statute said that we're limited to the e.p.a.'s limited to regulating navigable waters. the way this reads, you literally -- the e.p.a. and the army corps now through this guidance have the authority to regulate every single stream of water that drains in the geographic area. in the watershed boundary that drains to the nearest

traditional navigable water. that is an incredible expansion of federal power, as the gentleman from idaho quite correctly said. this was done outside of the normal rulemaking process because the obama administration knew that the public would overwhelmingly disapprove of this, that the congress would disapprove of this, that this goes beyond what the supreme court intended, that this goes beyond what the law allows so they did it through the back door, using lawyers and bureaucrats to write a 33-page document that you literally have to go to the back end of to learn that they are attempting to exercise jurisdiction over every stream of water that -- in the geographic area that drains to the nearest navigable waterway. that's why chairman frelinghuysen, chairman rogers included this language, to cut off funding for the implementation of this rule, because we've discovered the obama administration will do whatever they want, regardless

of the constitution. they ignore subpoenas, they ignore congressional hearings, letters from congress, they ignore everything except when you cut off the money. that's the only way to make the obama administration follow the law. vote against this amendment, to ensure that the obama administration follows the law and that we protect private property rights and keep the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers off of people's private property across america. and i urge members to oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: madam chair, i support the gentleman's amendment. i just have been listening to the debate and thinking, you know, we're a great nation because we figured out how to build a nation. we had 13 col miss it and then miraculously -- colonies and then miraculously, somehow through the northwest ordinance and other means, we added more states and figured out where

their boundaries were. sadly michigan and ohio had to fight a little war on a piece of territory between us, but we even got that figured out. and then, golly, you know, we alaska, xpanded even it became a state, and as we became more adult as a nation, we figured out where the watersheds were. we even had maps for watersheds in our country. we've always been a country that is a can-do nation, not a can't-do nation. so, i believe the amendment takes america in an important direction, by allowing the corps, the -- the corps the needed flexibility to deal with real confusion that has reigned in the wake of two supreme court decisions and frankly climate change, as water distribution changes around our country, we are moving into a different era, if anybody cares to open their eyes and look at what is happening across our country. without this amendment, the bill would result in increased implementation cost to federal

and state resource agencies as well as to the regulated community, increased delays in the implementation of important public works projects, and protracted litigation on the disparity between existing federal regulations and the two court decisions. further, the current provision does not apply to just this year, it applies to any subsequent energy and water development act, ensuring the uncertainty continues indefinitely. how is that good for anything? why is can't-do better than can-do? let's provide clarity. let's provide some certainty to the market. we should be allowing the corps to take actions that address the supreme court's rulings, bringing clarity and certainty to the regulatory process. not prolonging the confusion, further delay, further uncertainty, how does that help anything, regardless of what region of the country you live in? i urge my colleagues to support

this amendment. and i take back my re-- yield my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. this amendment here actually puts a lot of my district in jeopardy. my district relies heavily on irrigation and canals and other types of water projects and when you see a government agency, and come in and take jurisdiction, without any of us in this body, 435 members in this body, who have a responsibility to represent our constituents and make sure their voices are heard, and you take that power away and you give it to a bureaucracy in the dark of night where there's not an opportunity to actually speak their minds and have their voices heard, you set up for a pretty bad precedent. when you look at a constituency that feeds the country, we are in california, in my part of the valley, we do feed a good portion of the country. we grow 350 different crops, we

produce a lot of beats, poultry, pork, and all these different products go to feed the nation. when you look at an idea like this, where a lot of my constituents or most of my oppose, we're setting up for really bad -- a really bad idea. mr. valadao: so, this should be presented, it should be talked about amongst 435, not one agency, not one president pushing an idea. so, obviously i rise in opposition to this and i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i rise to oppose the amendment offered by my friend from virginia and do i so for three reasons. and i believe that the previous speakers on our side have listed these reasons, but i want to just drive this point. there's three of them. number one, it does seat a

tremendous amount of power to the executive branch -- cede an -- a tremendous amount of power to the executive branch. mr. kingston: in this case, this is a tremendous decision that the bureaucracy would be making instead of the elected representatives in the house and the senate. mr. culberson tombly quoted part of it -- actually quoted part of it. he said the agencies will nterpret in the region such other waters to be the watershed boundaries that drains to the nearest drownstream navigational or interstate water through a single point of entry. so in my district, where we have the savannah river and the st. mary's river, other rivers, it would appear that the entire district, which i represent in coastal georgia, would come under this new permitting process if the bureaucrats and if mr. moran had his way.

i'm against that. if that's going to happen, let the legislative branch debate it and then send it to the executive branch. number two, if you do so, all you're going to do is have more busybody bureaucrats in our lives, interfering with job creation, interfering with progress in general. you know, my area in the savannah river was authorized in the 1999 act to dredge the river. 13 years, madam chair, it took 13 year for four federal agencies to sign off on the dredging. even though we have been dredging the savannah river ever since 1733. but it took our government, four federal agencies, 13 years to give us a record of decision. during that period of time china started to build a port that is now bigger than the port of savannah. they started from scratch to finish and here we are,

supposed to be competing in a world marketplace, but that's permitting process and delays that the bureaucracies cause us. i'd rather leave these waters under state jurisdiction than the federal government. and number three and finally, it's vegas -- vague. it's totally vague. any time the federal bureaucrats with their unlimited bank accounts get involved in rule making, they can run the clock, they can charge up the permitting, the lawyer fees, do everything they want. i'll sca question to my friend from virginia, can you tell me what significant neck us -- nexus in navigable waters means? i can promise you 435 people in this body would have a different definition as to what a significant nexus to navigable waters means. we do not need this executive branch and this administration to have more power. this is the crowd that brought you the i.r.s., the a.p. scandal. this is the crowd that brought

you fast and furious. do you really want them to have more power, to interpret laws? i think not. i fear they would use that kind of authority to reward their friends and punish their enemies. and for these three reasons, madam chair, i oppose the amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any other member on this amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have. it the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i would ask for a recorded vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 11, line 20, 3-a-6 of 8, section the water resources development act of 1988 is amended.

section 109, section 1001, 17-a of the water resources development act of 2007 is amended. section 110, the authorization under the heading littlecal met river basin of the water resources development act of 1986 is further modified. section 111, limitation relating to total project costs in section 902 of the water resources development act of 1986 shall not apply. section 112, none of the funds may be used by the corps of engineers to develop -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. moran: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam chairwoman. my colleague, john dingell, and

i have another amendment that strikes in this case section 112 of this bill because section 112 would prevent the corps of engineers from upindicating regulations defining the terms fill material or discharge of fill material for the purposes of the clean air act. presently, the army corps issues a section 404 permit if the fill material discharged into a water body raises the elevation of that water body or converts an area to dry land. when congress first enacted the clean air act -- and that's why mr. dingell is so concerned about this -- the 404 permit process was supposed to be used for certain construction projects like bridges and roads where raising the bottom elevation of a water body or converting the area into dry land was simply unavoidable. but then some clever attorneys

in the george w. bush administration found a way to allow mining waste to be dumped into rivers and streams without a rigorous environmental review process. they simply changed the definition of what qualifies as fill material. under a 2002 rule change, the bush administration broadened that definition to, and i put this in quotes, include rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, overburdened from mining or other excavation activities. now, these guidelines are simply not well suited for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous waste from similar materials into a water body or wetland. when congress first enacted the clean air act, and for the first 30 years of its passage, the law helped keep america's lakes, rivers and streams safe from mining pollution, protected wildlife and drinking

water. but that's no longer the case today. perhaps it would come as no surprise to many that in 2009 the supreme court upheld this newer, broader definition of fill material that was adopted by the executive branch in 2002. the court allowed this new definition to be used for a kinsington mining operation near lower slate lake in alaska. i want to point out this anecdotal example, although it's a very important one. so the permit allowed the discharge of toxic waste water from a gold ore processing mill to go untreated directly into the lake despite it violates e.p.a. standards for the mining industry. today, all of lower slate lake's fish and aquatic life are gone, dead. now, madam chairwoman, that's

why we raise this amendment to strike section 112, which would rmanently preclude the corps from considering any regulated regulatory changes to the current definition and permit process. i would note much of the environmental community's frustration, the corps hasn't issued any regulations to change the definition of fill material or discharge of fill material. to that o back language that came about as a result of that clever change in 2002. you can find no effort by the corps to change it. the corps hasn't expressed any plans to do so. that's disappointing, but since there is no time limit on the provision in this appropriations bill, it would t only block the current administration but any future administration from considering any changes.

even one less sympathetic to the adverse health and environmental consequences of discharging hazardous waste into our drinking water. madam chairwoman, this provision that's in this bill is intended to be a preemptive strike against protecting our drinking water. we should not be putting this kind of legislation onto an appropriations bill, particularly when it has such adverse consequences to the future health of our population. that's why i would urge my colleagues to join me in removing this section from this appropriations bill. thank you, madam chairwoman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. kingston: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: madam chair, i stand in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from virginia, and i want to start out by clarifying

something that was said a minute ago that this was done by clever bush administration lawyers. in fact, it was a rule proposed by president clinton. that would be democrat president clinton, a rule proposed by democrat president clinton. public comment period. it wasn't done in the dark of the night, but it was done with public comments and the rule was changed in 2002, which is true that president bush would have been the president during that time period, but it was an ongoing and slow and deliberate process and it was simply a commonsense need that was something that i think was pro-business, which i understand is offensive to some people, but also streamlines the bureaucracy and helps the private sector create jobs. all it simply did was get the corps of engineers and the e.p.a. to have the same

definition of fill. that's not a radical concept. that's common sense. again, if we're going to compete in the world marketplace, we should have common sense even with washington bureaucrats. now, the definition includes materials that when placed into the waters of the u.s. have the effect of replacing or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of that water. therefore, it includes rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips and overburden from mining. these are regulated right now. they're not exempt from this. it simply says that the e.p.a. and the corps of engineers would use the same definition. so i stand in opposition to this and i do not think that this is the purpose of the gentleman's amendment but i do worry that as this

administration seems to have an open war going on on coal if this perhaps is part of it. not necessarily this amendment, but the thinking that two different agencies can now get on a different sheet in terms of what a definition is and therefore one agency can be more pro-active and slowing up progress and activities which you don't approve. there is an estimation that if this was to happen, 375,000 jobs in the mining business could be jeopardized. now, i understand this administration doesn't like mining, but for the rest of us who use the products in the united states of america, this is something that is significant and disturbing. 375,000 jobs in what we have called an anemic recovery already. so i believe that the responsible thing for us to do is to reject this amendment and

say that if this definition does need to be changed, let it not be done by bureaucrats. and let it not be done by lawyers either, but let it done by the elected representatives, both democrat and republican, of the american people and let 218 of us in the house have a yes or a no vote and then 51 in the senate and then send it to he white house for signature rather than have unelected bureaucrats who no one knows make these very important significant legal decisions for us. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. dingell: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dingell: madam chair, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dingell: madam chairman, i urge my colleagues to support

the amendment offered by my good friend from virginia. i urge them to strike section 112. there is no one in this chamber that owns this world. we borrow it from those who come behind us in the future, and we owe them a duty to see to it that we return it in proper form. the bill as drafted forbids the federal government from seeing to it that all manner of defilement is dumped into the navigable waters of the united states. this is having an appalling consequence, destroying waters, killing fish, polluting the water sources of our communities and cities. but beyond that it's doing something else. a race of unscrupulous people

are sawing the top of our mountains and they're taking that and dropping it in river valleys and filling them up. there is only which the water flowing through that valley becomes highly acidic and it's producing -- and it produces severe danger not just to fish and wildlife but to human beings. these are the waters of the united states that are being defiled. the amendment would at least afford a moderate level of authority to the federal government which has always been that authority of the federal government to protect the -- one of the greatest treasures this nation has, its flowing waters. my colleagues on the other side think that that is the question of jobs. we are going to mine and we

should, but we should do it arefully and wisely and well -- and we do not have the right to defile our waters. we have a duty to protect this land and to see to it that it is returned to future generation of americans in as good of shape we found it and perhaps, if we can, in a better shape. what they have done is to ange the situation where now almost anything goes. and the result is a calamity for the future of the united states. water is one of the next coming great shortages of this nation. it's something that is going to be very much missed by our future generations because we have by adopting this bill

without this amendment defile those waters, made them unsafe to drink and to recreate in, made them unsafe for all kinds of purposes, including even industrial use of those waters. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by my good friend from virginia. i urge you, my dear friends and colleagues, to look to the future of the country whose custodians and trustees we are, to see to it we return these beautiful nation -- this beautiful nation of ours to the future generations in the condition in which we found it and which is suitable and fitting to the greatest nation in the world. we can have mining. we can have all of the other things we need, but all we have to do under the laws it has been is to do it wisely, carefully, prudently and well

ith dual regard with the future. this language stricken by the amendment offered by my colleague from virginia would defile those waters and defile the future of this nation. i beg you, support the amendment. i beg you, strike the section. i beg you, be good trustees of the future and to the great gifts god has given this nation and to strike section 112 so that we can properly protect one of the great blessings that this nation has, an abundance of water, which the language of the bill, as now drawn, will defile and destroy and people in the app lashians will -- appalachians will curse us, by filling stream valleys with muck and corruption, by defiling the waters and the rivers and the streams of the

lakes of the united states. this is not good custodianship. this is disregard of the greatest opportunity that we have and that is to return to our future generations this nation in the shape in which they will want it to be and we want it to be. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to strike section 112, the energy and water appropriations bill. the current regulatory definition of the term fill material is consistent with the e.p.a. and corps' long standing practice and enensures necessary placement waters in the united states are regulated by the corps. this current rule brings

certainty and protects the environment. now, both the e.p.a. and the corps have stated they are considering revising the definition of fill material. from unelected bureaucrats to redefine this important definition would have a significant impact on the ability of all earth-moving industries, road and highway construction projects and private and commercial enterprises to obtain vital clean water act section 404 permits. mr. gibbs: changing the definition of fill material could result in the loss of up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and further this administration's assault on over one million jobs that are dependent upon the economic output generated by these operations. congress should therefore reject any attempts to add a new, inappropriately narrow definition of the term fill material that would not only harm existing operations but would also halt many new job-creating projects. i urge all the members to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition?

for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i would like to rise in support of congressman moran's amendment to strike section 112 and to protect the freshwaters of our nation for future generations. i note that many of those who have spoken in opposition to the moran amendment do not live in parts of the country that actually would be affected by the burial of this material. section 112 would prohibit the corps from amending its regulations to change the definition of fill material and discharge of fill material so that discharges of mine waste and similar materials into the waters of the united states would be regulated under the more environmentally protective regulations and standards issued under the national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program in section 402 of the clean water act and administered by the states along with e.p.a. i don't know how many members actually have had to deal with

cleaning up messes in their districts but i'll tell you, i didn't know, once i became a member of congress, how significant the work would be that i would have to do just in my region of the country to clean up the mess from the past. well, i've learned too much. and maybe the districts of those who are standing up in opposition to mr. moran's amendment have never had to do this. but let me tell you, there are dead lakes, freshwater lakes very close in fact in ohio to the gentleman from who just spoke -- the gentleman who just spoke in opposition to mr. moran's amendment. lakes that have been polluted and no one knows how to clean them up. i actually have had the task of representing a river that is dead. with waste that's in the bottom of the river that washes out into adjoining streams in the lake and all the scientists are trying to figure out how to cap it, how to do this, how to do

that with the p.c.b.'s and everything else. we have to change the way we live for the future generations of this country. how about trying to clean up something that's moving along in streams and washing out and you see rising cancer rates and why are cancer rates in certain parts of the country more than in other parts of the country? well, the legacy of the past. the messes that aren't cleaned up. how about unexploded ordinance on the bottom of streams and rivers and lakes across this country? if you get the -- if you get the department of defense charts on what happens -- what exists in this country that needs to be cleaned up, it is staggering. the defense cleanup costs that are necessary just across this nation, including in some of our freshwater lakes. if you don't know about the problem, well, i'm sorry that you don't. but i don't see how adding mine waste to the rest of this mess is going to make the future better than the past.

if you think about the population of the country, we had 146 million people in the country 50rks06 years ago. today we have -- 50, 60 years ago. today we have 300 million. you know what's not going to increase? the amount of water we have. the amount of freshwater is not an infinite resource. it is absolutely finite. and if used once -- it's used once and maybe it drops down again in the rain, but nobody's going to give us more water. it's either going to be snowfall, it's going to be rain, it's going to wash into our streams and rivers. there's not going to be anymore and we're going to have so many more people than we had in the past. why would we risk, why would we risk burying more junk in our rivers, in our streams, throwing it out in these river beds around the country? if you haven't faced the task of trying to clean it up, then you shouldn't even be voting on this bill. it is the cost of past

cleanups, it's enormous. i wish i didn't have to deal with it in my region of the country. hey, came here tke parks better, i came here to build better housing, i came here to create jobs and i'm finding i have these billion-dollar cleanup jobs for which we have no money. no money to clean them up. why would we add to the problem? under the current definition such discharges are evaluated under the clean water act, section 404-b-1 guidelines, which are not well suiteder to evaluating the environmental effects of -- well suited for evaluating the environmental effects of discharge waste. and further, the current provision does not apply to just this year, it applies to any subsequent energy and water development act, precluding potential changes that may be necessary to protect public health or the environment. if you haven't seen babies that have tumors in their brains because some company buried waste in parks that those children played in, then somebody better wake up around

here. and change the way that we do business in this country. because we cannot do this, we cannot continue the bad practices of the past. we have to make life better for future generations, that will have more pressures on them simply because the population growth -- of population growth in this country. i urge my colleagues to support the moran amendment and commend him for you are aing -- offering it on this bill today. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the question is on the amendment -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia seek recognition? mrs. capito: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to the moran amendment. basically, in a committee hearing on water, i asked specifically the e.p.a.'s acting administrator for water, nancy stoner, what specific problems with the current definition of fill material was prompting the agency and the

corps to examine their current definition. administrator stoner at that time did not identify any problem. this was just recently in may, with the current definition. and instead told me there was no active discussions with the corps on revising the 2002 definition of fill material. i do live in an area that this is -- that this greatly affects. we have a lot of water in west virginia. by god's good grace. given that the e.p.a. official charged with overseeing water problems did not identify any problems with the current definition of fill material in response to a specific question from me, it is difficult for me to see why the e.p.a. and the corps would attempt to change an established definition. the current definition of fill material has been in place for over a decade and provides a fair standard for protecting our water while allowing for economic activity. the 2002 definition was a result of a very lengthy rule making process that began under president clinton's administration and was finalized under the bush

administration. a balance between our economy and the environment is absolutely essential. a balance between protecting our environment and creating jobs is essential. and the current definition does just that. the federal government must provide regulatory certainty to job creators and changing definitions without adequate justification -- if the administrator had responded differently to the question that i posed to her, i might not be standing here today with this type of opposition. but in my view, i think that we need to oppose this amendment, keep the current definition of fill material that's been well researched, well used and is in effect in the state of west virginia, that is used quite a to continue our mine operations, to continue to keep good, solid west virginians working. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

mr. moran: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i would ask for a oll call vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: section 1, page 13, line 10, section 113, the secretary shall not promulgate any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm at a water resources development project. title 2, department of the interior, central utah project. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> move to strike the last word, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to commend the gentlelady from ohio and the gentleman from new jersey for the debate in general that we witnessed on this floor. i think we can all agree in so many respects that infrastructure is not a republican or a democratic issue. mr. larson: it's an american issue. i come here this afternoon to reason. funny word here i guess in congress, but in fact it's something i think we need to do more of. i come here disheartened to see this bill come to the floor that is underinvesting in something that is critical to the nation. flood protection. amongst the many infrastructure issues, it's one that imperils many districts, including my that for ve systems

75 years have not been addressed in a way that they need to be. all around us, whether it's in my district or anywhere across this country, infrastructure problems abound. whether it's roads, whether it's bridges, whether it's airports, whether it's deep harbors, whether it's school ystems or whether it's levees. they are in need of repair. they are in need of our investment as a nation. the great irony is that in these difficult economic times what we need is to put the country back to work. what is required for the country to go back to work is to improve the very infrastructure over which our commerce grows and flows, that

provides our economy with the kind of boost that it needs, that puts our people back to work. i've heard person after person get up and cite china on the other side, talking about their vast development. how has china moved forward if not in developing its own infrastructure. yet here in our country the neglect continues. congress cannot continue to sleep while our infrastructure erodes from underneath us. the levees between hartford and east hartford have been cited in study after study that needs the attention that local municipalities have put their own funding for but could not

possibly match what the federal government has required. not just in my state and in my district, but all across this country. case in point can be made with hurricane sandy, where the government spent $60 billion in disaster relief. is the ng projects that prudent thing to do, we know that for every $1 spent, every $1 spent that we do in preserving and making safe our districts, by improving the infrastructure, is $4 that's saved in this country. it's hard for people back in my district, and especially people in ather at a local stand my district where they serve

hot dogs and hamburgers and coffee and breakfast in the morning, they can't understand why it is that congress can't get together and reason and understand that by funding the infrastructure, not by cutting back on the army corps, not by continuing to cut programs that will provide funding for jobs, but actually by investing in americans instead of sitting idly by and watching as other nations, especially our chief competitors, invest in their own infrastructure, improve their own security while congress sleeps and watches the slow erosion of what was the once greatest system in the world and still can be if we come together and reason and invest in our systems, invest in our people, invest in our security, invest in the protection that will make sure that the american people are

safe, secure and, most importantly, back to work. it's neither democrat nor republican. it's fundamentally american. hank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i wanted to come down here in support of this bill of energy -- the energy and water development appropriations bill. i'd like to commend chairman frelinghuysen and the entire subcommittee on developing a strong bill that balances the these of our nation with fiscal responsibility. this bill cuts spending by nearly $3 billion in f.y. 2013 enacted levels while maintaining critical funding for infra structure and our nation's energy needs. one issue of particular importance to me in my home in southwest washington is the

maintenance of waterways and small ports. diment buildup has blocked commerce. ms. herrera beutler: it leaves areas without their largest critical industries. when one of these chams is blocked, it's no different than if a town's main highway were pleatly blocked or washed away. we need to treat the maintenance of our nation's small ports with the same level of urgency. the underlying bill makes great strides to alleviate the challenges by including $1 billion from the harvard -- harbor maintenance trust fund and no less than $30 million specifically for small poferts and waterways. while this -- for small ports and waterways. while this will not solve all of our needs, it demonstrates the chairman's dedication to ports in towns like my home in

southwest washington. as a member of the appropriations committee i'm proud to have played a role in securing this funding, i strongly support the bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> it's been an honor to be here for this debate. my colleagues on the other side want to reduce the role that e.p.a. plays. i hear phrases like an unelected body that makes decisions in the dark of night. mr. swal well: but they're not an unelected body. we have elections in this country. the e.p.a. is part of this squad ofs, that the administration

this administration and this dministration was elected. when i was a lawyer, we would have a trial, we would select a jury and then a trial and then a verdict. new we have a president who was re-elected and an agency the president is charged with administrating. it really does disturb me, mr. chairman, to think these agencies shouldn't have any teeth or enforcement to protect our children in the future. but i also rise to express my concern about the impact this water and energy propeses bill will have on the national laboratories. we depend on our national laboratories for the basic scientific research that kirpse country safe and keeps us on the cutting edge of technology. our labs are home to technology.

i'm fortunate that i'm able to represent laurence livermore nssa al laboratory, laboratories who work to maintain our nuclear stockpile and look far -- an all of the above energy solution for the future. right now, this bill reduces what the laboratories call laboratory directed research and development. in laboratory directed research and development, ldrd, allows scientists at the laboratory to work on their own experiments in addition to the work they do at the lab. in the private sector, google was the first company to innovate with this, they call it 20% time. one day out of the week, an employee would be able to work -- 20% of the week, one day a week, on their projects. me programs we use, gmail or

picasa, came from 20% time. the laboratory it's 8% time. ldrd. this is a way to recruit top talent and promise scientists the ability to do republic lishable work as well as classified work. but this cuts that time from 8% to 4 1/2%, resulting in less independent science research, it will hurt the ability of our classified labs to recruit the best talent. cuts to rned about the the lawrence livermore national emissions facility. known as nef. in lifingt energy treaties that prevent us conducting nuclear test best low or aboveground, it allows taos use laser science to maintain our stockpile and nonproliferation programs. america should be a leader in the area of fusion research.

russia, china, and france have accelerated investments in their efforts to compete in inner inertial ne -- in confinement energy. considering our national security threats and limited domestic energy sources, this is no time to be cutting its capabilities. unfortunately, jobs at nef have been cut and the capacity has been curtailed because of reductions in fiscalier 2013 and the sequester. the funding levels in this bill will make the situation much worse. we must ensure that the united states does not fall behind our competitors and continues to build on the investments already begun. it is crucial that nef gets the funding it needs to continue this crucial work. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to carefully consider the damage that these cuts would do in our national laboratories and consider he value of preserving our country's leadership and our role in maintaining our nuclear stockpile and investments in the

future of our country through laboratory directed research and development. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 14, line 1, expect of the entire york central utah project. central utah project completion account $7,425,000 for fiscal year 2014, the commission may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for ad mrtive expenses. bureau of reclamation, appropriations shall be extended to execute functions of the bureau of reclamation, water and related resources, $812,744,000. the chair: the clerk will respund -- suspend. for what purpose does the gentlelady from south dakota seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. noem of south dakota. page 16, line 4rk after the dollar amount insert increase by $25 million. page 22 line five after the dollar amount insert reduce by

$15 million. page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $15 million. the chair: the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized for five minutes. mrs. noem: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would ensure that we're placing a higher priority on ongoing rural water projects in the plains reregion and the west my amendment takes $15 million from the department of energy's administration budget and $15 million if the solar energy programs, $25 million would go to the bureau of reclamation rural water projects and the remaining $5 million would be left for deficit reduction. i recognize that we have limited funds to go around and this is why we need to work so hard to make sure that our priorities are addressed. it's why we make sure we can agree that water should be a priority, drinking water for people who live in this country should be a priority. there are places in this country, especially in the rural

areas, that people are still waiting for a stable water supply. there are towns that would like to grow but don't have enough water or basic infrastructure to find new businesses and bring new families in. they're waiting for the federal government to complete projects that have been authorized, that have been started, and that those communities have already invested in. as we go through the appropriations process, i think supplying our rural areas with water should be a top priority. i think it's shocking, it's shocking that some of these authorized projects have been waiting years to see the promised federal dollars to complete the projects. many of these local communities have already funded their share of the projects. some of the administration's funding proposals for these projects don't even keep up with inflation. it's not an -- as representatives we absolutely need to be responsible with taxpayer dollars. when the federal government makes a promise to provide basic infrastructure, they need to follow through. this amendment is just a small step in getting where we need to

be. it's commonsense to make sure that something as basic as water supply is available in all areas, urban and rural. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment to ensure that these very essential projects are on their way to completion. i'd like to thank the chairman and committee for their hard work on this bill, i certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i would yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i would like to claim time in opposition to representative noem's amendment. i think that there's a worthy objective of providing fresh water to all parts of our country, we've talked about that earlier today. the problem is her amendment takes funds from other accounts to try to move some of those

dollars to rural america. our fundamental problem is that this bill is $2. billion under what was being extended in this -- expended in this fiscal year of 2013 and $4 billion under the administration's request. what she's essentially doing is taking money from something else in order to move it to rural areas of the country, i represent some of those, they're very worthy, some of them dereceive funds through the department of agriculture, some smaller communities also have associations with the environmental protection agency, but to cut funds and to take money from the renewable energy accounts, $15 million from there, and from other water-related accounts, and to cut departmental administration, really is not -- sort of picking off very scarce bones. and i have to oppose the

amendment on that basis. the renewable energy accounts which are america's future, they're a major part of our town payment on the future, have been cut 60%, you are withdrawing additional funds from those accounts to try to move toward needed rural water needs but have , these accounts been severely cut and the gentlelady's amendment harms them more. we simply can't cut more. -- can't cut more from those accounts. i am -- i support more funding for the rebuilding of america's urban water systems which are leaking all over this country. in fact, we just had a collapse in my home community for some reason, a major intersection just imploded because the water systems underneath weren't properly attended to, this is happening from coast to coast. so our urban water systems are severely constricted, there's all kinds of problems there, and in parts of rural america,

obviously we are still trying to extend lines, trying to clean to pollute not water anymore, in order to make sure that citizens who live there and the livestock that is there has sufficient fresh water resources. so i identify with what you're trying to do but not where you are taking the funds from. those dollars simply can't be cut any further. i have to oppose the amendment and i urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. perhaps we can work in other ways in the future but the fundamental problem is the bill has been cut $2. billion and some of that is come -- has been cut $2. billion and some of that is coming from what would be available for rural water programs. i strongly oppose the amendment not because it isn't worthy but because seese raiding other accounts that cut literally to the bone. mr. chairman, i yield back my remaining time and urge my colleagues to vote no on the noem amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields

back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank my colleague and neighbor from south dakota for authoring and offering this bill, this amendment which i support and urge my colleagues to support, it really reprioritizes the spending and the goodwork the appropriations committee has already done, just a few million dollars. it reprioritizes it in a way that recognizes the changing of our nation in recent years. because so much of the policy and the appropriations of our energy department are based on an old order that recognizes our country as having a scarcity of natural resources for energy development. mr. cramer: but that's no longer the case. we are now a nation of abundant energy resources. but we are still, especially in the west, a nation of scarce ater resources. resources that are important to the development of many of our

communities and tribes and farms and ranches. water for drinking and industrial growth and irrigation. and so i think this repriorization of a few million dollars is appropriate and recognizes how different our world is and with that i urge a yes vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from south dakota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 16, line 3, central valley project restoration fund, $53,288,000. california bay delta restoration, $30 million. policy and administration, $60 million. administrative provision, appropriations for the bureau of reclamation shall be

available for purchase of five passenger motor vehicles. general provoigses -- provisions, department of the interior, section 201, none of the funds shall be available through a reprogram of funds that creates or initiates a new program, project or activity. section 202, none of the funds may be used to determine the final point of discharge for the drain for the unit until development to minimize any detrimental effect of the san luis drainage waters. section 203, until the pipeline reliability study required in the consolidated appropriations act of 2012 is completed, the bureau of reclamation shall not deny approval if the corrosion control requirements of a published national standard promulgated by the american water works association. title 3, department of energy, energy programs, renewable energy, energy reliability and

efficiency. $982,637,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of washington. page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $9,518,000. page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $20 million. page 31, line 16, after the dollar amount insert, increase y $22,586,000. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, nuclear weapons production played a pivotal role in our nation's defense for decades, helping to end the second world war and end to the

cold war. but implementing these programs esulted in a large volume of radioactive waste that the federal government has a legal responsibility to clean up. today there are indications that nuclear waste is leaking out of the underground tanks at hanford in my congressional district with higher levels of contamination now being detected in the surrounding soil. the amendment that i offer, mr. chairman, would restore a portion of the reduction for the environmental management program that would so greatly impact the richland operations office. and help enable the cleanup to move forward safely, efficiently and in a timely manner. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. hastings: i'd be happy to yield to the subcommittee chairman. >> i appreciate your longstanding commitment to hanford. mr. frelinghuysen: and i support this amendment which is aimed at strengthening environmental management in the richland operations office.

e.m. is a priority for the subcommittee and i look forward to returning to hanford as i have in the past to get a firsthand look at the latest challenges and progress and we know there are lots of challenges. as you know, representative hastings, the department of energy has not yet provided confirmation of probably tank leaks -- probable tank leaks, a record of decision on tank waste or a plan for the waste treatment plant. this information will be required as congress completes the appropriations process for the office of protection. mr. hastings: thank you for your support for this amendment and for your position on yucca mountain in the underlying bill which is the ultimate solution for hanford's high-level tank waste. i remind the chairman, i am meeting with the secretary later this week and i'll reiterate the need for the information that you just

outlined for w.t.p. i also recognize the discrepancy in the allocations between the house and the senate bills. i want to ask the gentleman, how do you anticipate that these differences will be resolved, particularly as they pertain to e.m. in the event of a continuing resolution and i yield to the gentleman. mr. frelinghuysen: in the event of a continuing resolution, the department of energy has the flexibility in determining funding levels for individual projects, including e.m. mr. hastings, i'm pleased to support your amendment and i wish you success. mr. hastings: thank you very much. reclaiming my time, mr. chairman, i hope we don't get to a c.r. but thank you very much for the information. at this time i'd like to yield to my colleague from southwest washington, the gentlelady from the appropriations committee, ms. herrera beutler. ms. herrera beutler: that was the reactor used for the

manhattan project and was used to build the nuclear arsenal during the cold war. i had an opportunity to tour that and i believe in this amendment. this is a federal government responsibility. this wasn't a choice by a local community and the cleanup just is simply beyond the scope of the communities involved. this matters to people in my district and up and down the columbia river which is adjacent to your area and i would urge my colleague, this is not -- this isn't somebody's pet project, this isn't somebody's good idea, this is a responsibility. as the gentleman said, a legal responsibility, i would add to that a moral responsibility of the federal government to put this money here and help aid the cleanup effort. with that i yield back. thank you. mr. hastings: i thank the gentlelady for her remarks and again i urge adoption of this amendment because this is a legal obligation. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from ohio.

ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman. and say to congressman hastings that i rise with sympathy toward the situation you face at hanford but must oppose your amendment. the amendment essentially would cut funding from the energy efficiency and renewable energy, specifically the weatherization program, which affects dous dozens and dozens of communities across this country, many of them very low income, as well as departmental administration which has already been cut to the bone to move money to hanford. and it is true that the communities that contributed to the manhattan project cannot be left with the remnants that have war effort. and we have a moral obligation to clean up these sites and without question the bill is inadequate to meet the commitments to states and local

communities faced with cleanup. however, we cannot take those dollars out of the hides of elderly people who might live in newark, new jersey, in the wintertime or in portland, oregon, or places where they can't afford their energy bills. or we can't divert money from administration which is already cut to such a low level at the department in order to move dollars to hanford. hanford already receives over $2 billion a year. $2 billion. i wish my community received $2 billion. i wish your communities received $2 billion a year. those dollars come from the river protection program, over $1.2 billion. plus an additional $177 -- excuse me, $877 million, well over $2 billion a year. that's more than most communities represented by members here can even imagine

coming to their region. the defense waste cleanup in ohio is extraordinary. we don't get $2 billion a year. so to say to senior citizens across this country, we're going to take it out of your weatherization programs so you can't put plastic around your windows in the wintertime, and try to retrofit your houses, or we're going to take it out of departmental administration where we risk accounting for the funds properly, for all these programs that the department has to administer, including the cleanup, some of these contracts that we've had problems with in that department, i simply can't support the manner in which the gentleman and the gentlelady have identified where they're taking the money from. so while i agree with their intent, as i've said many times, the allocation for this bill is $2.8 billion under last year and $4 billion under the

administration's request and it's simply insufficient. we can't keep picking the bones off the most needy parts of our country, to try to divert additional dollars to efforts at hanford that are spending well over $2 billion a year already. so i would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. but in being fair and looking it's a all the accounts we simply can't keep picking from the bones of other programs at the department. and i yield back the balance of my time. and i ask my colleagues to vote against the hastings amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, he ayes have it. the gentlelady from texas. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas -- mr. johnson: john roberts i have an amendment --

ms. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. eddie bernice johnson -- ms. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the chair: is there objection? mr. frelinghuysen: i object. would the gentlewoman be able to identify the amendment, what she's proposing? the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 22, line 5 after the dollar amount, insert, increase by $992,620,000 -- mr. frelinghuysen: i withdraw my objection. the chair: objection is withdrawn. without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm offering this amendment to restore the significant cuts to the critical science and energy research and development programs that were made in this ill, including an 80% cut to

arpa-e and 50% cut to the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. these programs, along with the department of energy's office of science, are vital to our national security, our economy and our environment in the decades to come. it is really worth us thinking about the fact that we have seen how government research can pay off when it comes to energy development. d.o.e. supported research was key to the development of high-efficiency gas turbines for coal plants, nuclear reactors, developing federal labs and the directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing practices that have led to the shale gas boom. but we should remember that those achievements required decades of federal investment and overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil and nuclear energy.

i continue to support research to make today's technologies cleaner and more efficient. but i believe that it is time for a level playing field. d i introduce a real competition to our markets -- markets. that is where the priorities set by congress come into place. we have to find the greatest value for our investment of our taxpayer dollars and today it the emerging energy technology sectors that can cost-benefit from government support. i have heard it said that this bill has been cut to the bone. and i think it is also -- and i know that it's important that d.o.e.'s office of science is actually the largest supporter of basic research in the fiscal scientists in the country and it operates scientific user facilities where applications go way beyond energy

innovation. our nation's top researchers from industry, academia and other federal agencies use these facilities to examine everything from new materials that will better meet our military needs to new pharmaceuticals that will better treat disease. through examining the federal building blocks of the universe. i believe this is the stewardship of unique scientific research, including the nation's major national user facilities, is another important role that i hope the department will continue to make use of its highest priorities. it is no secret that congress' inability to date to come to an agreement on a central budget plan has led to some devastating cuts through many of these -- to many of these important programs with serious impacts on our nation's future. to restore these research funds, i'm certain it would not -- i certainly would not make to wish these proposed cuts in my amendment which may slow down our ability to meet the

nation's defense. however, the environmental cleanup obligations this year, i believe that these research programs are the seed corn of our future. some things we know we have to baited -- wait to do and perhaps we can prolong that cleanup. but, mr. chairman, i sincerely, sincerely plead that we not cut this type of money from the esearch we have going. research is our nation's future. we cannot give up on our nation's future. i'm hoping that we can support this amendment and allow some of this research to go forward. thank you, i yield back and ask for support. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i rise to oppose the amendment and seek time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the amendment. it increases funding for arpa-e and other programs by a total of $1.7 billion, using defense environmental cleanup as an offset. defense environmental cleanup provides funds to clean up after the manhattan project, a huge task, and we heard part of the washington state story and there's part in other parts of the country as well. the federal government has an inherent response to believe the address this legacy and ensure the materials created to build our nuclear weapons stockpile do not endanger mick health and the environment. there are also some other daunting technical challenges to clean up this waste and this amendment would, frankly, pleatly gut those programs. it is doubtful that this level would even sustain the basic operations and maintenance of the facilities, let alone allow

for progress in the cleanup effort. the cleanup effort needs to be sustain. ourall case is made, as i said earlier, in the afternoon, for very tough choices. we place the highest priority on activity which is the federal government must take the lead while the -- take the lead. while the applied energy programs are down substantially, there's a strong interest in advancing these areas of reserk and responsibility for conducting that research can shift in many ways to the private sector. therefore i strongly oppose the amendment and urge other members to do the same and yield back. ms. johnson: will the gentleman yield? mr. frelinghuysen: i'm happy to yield. ms. johnson: thank you for your explanation, i think you have a good point but i think we cannot cut research. i would ask you to help me find a spot perhaps we can use the

dollars and postpone some of the cleanup, this is urgent. and it is needed. and i would ask you to agree to assist in us restoring some of this research. mr. frelinghuysen: know that the gentlewoman's heart is in the right place, heart felt views, we'll be happy to work with you to see what we can do to assist in these other areas but environmental cleanup in some respects is a court ordered, besides obviously the potential for human healthened and adversely affected. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i, too, rise in strong opposition to theament and i do appreciate the gentlelady's concerns, particularly about science funding. however, mr. chairman,

increasing funding for optional programs as valuable as they may be cannot come at the expense of the federal government meeting its legal obligations to clean by our aste created nation's nuclear defense program. i might add, mr. chairman, these are programs that won world war ii and largely won the cold war. at hanniford new york my district, the federal government has 56 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. today, it appears likely some of these tans are leaking and higher levels of contamination have been detected in the areas surrounding one of the most recent leakers. in addition, there is also a large quantity of radioactive waste at hanniford that was never put into tanks. that, too, must be dealt with. as well as nuclear waste at other sites across the country

like savanna river, oak ridge, and idaho. nuclear waste was created by programs of the federal government for defense purposes. cutting $1.7 million from -- $1.7 billion from the e.m. program would essentially halt most nuclear waste cleanup work and it would put the safety of our cleanup sites at risk and harm any chance of our federal government meeting its cleanup responsibilities. let me be more specific about hanniford. i mentioned 56 billion gallons of nuclear/hazardous waste stored in 177 underground tanks. those tanks range in size from half a million gallons to a million gallons. now when you go out to the site, of course you can't see the tanks because they're understood ground. all you see is gauges on top that monitor what activity is going on in those tanks. so if you want to quantify how

much 56 million gallons is, picture this. if you want to put 56 million gallons here it would take over 21 house chambers. over 21 house chambers to fill 56 million gallons of waste. that's how much radioactive waste is at hanniford that needs to be cleaned up. it's the result of the defense weapons program. now, distinguished subcommittee chairman and i and others have mentioned the legal only fwation. in washington state the legal obligation is tchailed triparty agreement. it's set deadlines for cleaning up hanniford including the waste i just mentioned but it's a legal agreement between the federal e.p.a., between the federal department of energy, and between the state department of ecology. it's a legal agreement. with timely -- timelines. if you don't meet the agreement, of course you're going to be

sue. every time there's been a threat to be pseudoor a disagreement on the timeline, the state has always won. so why would we want to defund this program and put all of that at risk which of course would cost a whole lot more money in the future. so while i recognize the gentlelady and her passion for science funding and i, too, understand that. i have a national lab in my district, for example, $56 billion -- 56 billion gallon, er 21 house chambers of eyed hazardous waste needs to be cleaned up. so i oppose the gentlelady's amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in support of my

colleague, the gentlewoman from texas', amendment. it is vital to support the basic scientific reserming. as the ranking member of the scientific -- science committee she carries great weight on these matters and i would like to yield time to her. the chair: the gentlelady from texas. the gentleman from california will remain standing. ms. johnson: i clearly understand the explanation. this amendment does not strike all the funds, it strikes about a third and i know the dangers of having all the waste that needs to be cleaned up. but i also think that it's important not to close the doors to the future for this nation while we do it. hasally think that research been -- the element that has brought us here this far, it's going to be research and innovation that carries us forward. we cannot close the door on research while we talk about

cleaning up waste and reonly ask -- we're only asking for a third of the money. so i want to make another appeal that we not close the door on the future of our nation by shutting down our research. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. >> i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fleischmann: thank you, mr. chairman. i represent oak ridge, the birth place of the manhattan prompt. oak ridge has a great history. we won the cold war there. we won world war ii there. but this was a time that the federal government in the

manufacturing of nuclear weapons was not as careful as it could have been. we didn't know. we had to win those wars and we did. but as a result of that legacy, we have a problem. doc hastings, my colleague from washington, talked about the problem in hanniford but there's 500 square miles in hanniford. that needs to be cleaned up. but in my community in oak ridge, tennessee, there are populations, churches, schools, people, all around in a highly condensed area. deal lee ross the complex there, a tremendous program that needs to be cleaned up. we have nuclear waste that needs to be cleaned up across the complex. that's being done. but we also have a mercury problem. there's estimated two million pounds of mercury in the soil and the water. this is a real problem for real citizens for americans. this is a federal obligation to

clean this legacy up. there's no question about that. across this great nation whether it's in oak ridge, savanna river, hanniford, idaho, we have an obligation to the american people to clean this up. we won world war ii, we won the cold war but we must do this. these wastes are dangerous, it's expensive to clean these things up. it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. and the longer we take to do this, we expose the people in these communities all across america to the hazards of this nuclear waste. so mr. chairman, as an advocate for oak ridge, as an advocate for environmental cleanup, we must get this done. we have decades worth of work to go. we have got to do this. as we honor oak ridge and other communities with a great national park which is coming forward, which was voted for in this great house, we can never forget the legacy that's left behind. environmental cleanup is a must, it's a federal obligation.

thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you and i appreciate the comments of my friends from tennessee and washington. in colorado mitigating circumstance district, we have two of those plants, world war ii and cold war legacy plants, rocky flats and rocky mountain arsenal. i appreciate the comments and the need to clean these sites up. it's long overdue. i agree with you and look forward to that. but the problem we have here are substantial cuts to the energy department budget on the one hand and on the other hand an increase to this line item above and beyond the president's request. as i understand it, there was a request of some -- the committee recommends to the house $345 million, $23.5 million over the

administration's request. scral though i agree completely with the need to clean up, you all are the majority party -- the majority party is requesting more than is needed at this point, to the detriment of the rest of the budget of the energy department. particularly ones that i'm concerned about, renewable nrbling such as the national renewable energy lab and i will have an amendment to that point coming up later. mr. perlmutter: i agree -- i agree with you, the cleanup needs to go forward, it should be done at the full amount the president requested, not at the $23 million more that has been suggested by the committee. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio. ms. cap purr: mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five mins. ms. kaptur: this debate is a perfect example of why this bill's funding is so inadequate. what is really being debated is

whether we are going to trade off the science of the future, which is so essential to america's competitiveness in the global economy, to take care of necessary past cleanup. who can make that choice? they are both essential. are we going to sacrifice the future for the past? that's really what this debate is about. $4 we know that this bill is billion under the administration's request and over $2 billion under what we spent in this fiscal year of 2013. so so we really have an argument that nobody really wins. if we fund the past cleanup, we